S-17

wq-rule4-15q S-17 S-17 S-17 S-17 S-18 MPCA SONAR Exhibit # 18. Myrbo, A, E.B. Swain, D.R. Engstrom, J. Coleman Wasik, J. Brenner, M. Dykhuizen Shore, E. B. Peters, and G. Blaha. Sulfide generated by sulfate reduction is a primary controller of the occurrence of wild rice (Zizania palustris) in shallow aquatic ecosystems. (submitted 2017)

Exhibit 18 is not publicly posted on the MPCA Web page due to copyright protection laws. The document is available by request to the MPCA by contacting Carol Nankivel at 651-757-2597 or at [email protected] S-19 MPCA SONAR Exhibit # 19. Pastor, J., B. Dewey, N.W. Johnson, E.B. Swain, P. Monson, E. B. Peters, and A. Myrbo. Effects of sulfate and sulfide on the life cycle of Zizania palustris in hydroponic mesocosm experiments. Ecological Applications, Vol. 27, No. 1, January, 2017 pp. 321-336. available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.1452/full

Exhibit 19 is not publicly posted on the MPCA Web page due to copyright protection laws. However, the cited link provides access to the document in accordance with the respective copyright restrictions. The document is also available by request to the MPCA by contacting Carol Nankivel at 651-757-2597 or at [email protected] S-20 S-21 Natural Wild Rice In Minnesota

A Wild Rice Study document submitted to the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources February 15, 2008

David Hansen UMN 2000 S-21

Fiscal Disclosure

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 3.197, we estimate that it cost approximately $72,614 to produce this report. This includes Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) staff time for conducting the inventory, attending meetings, drafting and reviewing the report and compiling comments and recommendations ($45,159) and meeting expenses, including travel, for consultation with the Technical and Partnership Teams ($1,772). In addition, costs accrued to other agencies and individuals participating on the Technical Team are $22,618 for time and $3,065 for travel. These costs do not include the costs of preceding research and public participation efforts conducted by the MNDNR or Team members prior to the requirement that this report be prepared. S-21

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... 1 Introduction...... 6 Importance of Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota...... 7 Cultural Importance ...... 7 Ecological Importance ...... 8 Economic Importance ...... 10 Wild Rice Background...... 12 Taxonomy ...... 12 Distribution and Abundance ...... 12 Life History...... 14 Legal Considerations ...... 16 Threats to Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota ...... 21 Stand Level Threats ...... 21 Hydrological Changes...... 21 Recreational Water Use and Shoreland Development...... 22 Wildlife Activity ...... 23 Plant Competition ...... 24 Mining and Other Industrial Activity ...... 25 Statewide Threats...... 25 Loss of Natural Genetic Characteristics ...... 25 Non-native Invasive Species...... 27 Climate Change...... 29 Lack of Recruitment and Retention of Harvesters...... 31 Management Challenges...... 33 Multiple Jurisdictions...... 33 Annual Crop Variability ...... 34 Information Needs ...... 35 Recommendations...... 36 Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………………….39 Appendix A. Natural Wild Rice Study Development Process ...... 48 B. Natural Wild Rice Distribution and Abundance in Minnesota ...... 51 C. Natural Wild Rice Harvest Survey...... 84 D. The Life History of Natural Wild Rice……………………………………………….87 E. Wild Rice Bibliography……………….………………………………………………91 F. Stakeholder Comments…………….………………………………………………...105 S-21

Executive Summary

Introduction This report fulfills the requirements of Session Law 2007, Chapter 57, Article 1, Section 163 requiring the Commissioner of Natural Resources to prepare a study for natural wild rice that includes: (1) the current location and estimated acreage and area of natural stands; (2) potential threats to natural stands, including, but not limited to, development pressure, water levels, pollution, invasive species, and genetically engineered strains; and (3) recommendations to the house and senate committees with jurisdiction over natural resources on protecting and increasing natural wild rice stands in the state.

In fulfilling these requirements, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) established a Technical Team of wild rice experts from State, Tribal, and Federal governments, as well as academia and the private sector. The MNDNR also established a Partnership Team representing major stakeholders.

Importance of Natural Wild Rice Nowhere has natural wild rice been more important, nor had a richer history, than in Minnesota. No other native Minnesota plant approaches the level of cultural, ecological, and economic values embodied by this species. Natural wild rice has been hand harvested as a source of food in the Great Lakes region for thousands of years.

The Ojibwe people have a special cultural and spiritual tie to natural wild rice. Known to their people as Manoomin, it is revered as a special gift from the Creator. In addition many immigrants to Minnesota adopted hand harvesting of natural wild rice as an annual ritual. Annual sales of state licenses for wild rice harvesting peaked in 1968 at over 16,000. In recent years, annual sales have averaged fewer than 1500. In many instances, though, tribal harvesters are not required to buy state licenses. It is thought that more than 3000 tribal members participate in wild rice harvesting, providing a statewide total (tribal and nontribal) of 4000-5000 individuals annually.

The value of natural wild rice to wildlife has been long appreciated by American Indians and was marveled at by early European explorers. Research since then has documented that wild rice provides food and shelter for many fish and wildlife species. It is one of the most important foods for waterfowl in North America. More than 17 species of wildlife listed in the MNDNR’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as “species of greatest conservation need” use wild rice lakes as habitat for reproduction or foraging.

Wild rice harvest has provided important economic benefits to local economies. As with other commodities, the price paid for unprocessed natural wild rice can vary considerably. Although pricing is mainly determined by supply, marketing also plays a role. During the past 70 years, the price of one pound of unprocessed wild rice has ranged from $0.10 in 1940 to $2.17 in 1966. Adjusted for inflation these prices in today’s dollars are equivalent to $0.75 and $13 per pound, respectively. As an example, the 1966 harvest of 924,000 lbs would have been worth over $12 million today.

1 S-21

Prior to 1970, Minnesota provided half of the global market supply of wild rice. Most of this rice was from hand harvested natural stands. By 1990, the large-scale production of cultivated wild rice had expanded, and natural wild rice accounted for less than 10% of the global market supply. The total annual yield of cultivated and hand harvested wild rice in Minnesota today ranges from four to eight million pounds. A recent MNDNR survey found the average annual hand harvest of natural stands to be 430 pounds per individual.

Background Although stands of natural wild rice occur most commonly in central and north-central Minnesota, the historic range of wild rice included all of the state. Based on the inventory conducted for this report, the range of natural wild rice today includes 55 counties in Minnesota. Stands of natural wild rice were present or occurred in recent history on approximately 1286 lakes and river/stream segments. These areas support a minimum of 64,328 acres of natural wild rice when growing conditions are favorable.

The greatest concentration of lakes supporting natural wild rice is in Aitkin (4,859 acres), Cass (8,323 acres), Crow Wing (3,751 acres), Itasca (8,448 acres), and St. Louis (8,939 acres) counties. These counties contain over 60% of the inventoried natural wild rice acreage in Minnesota. These counties also account for over 70% of the harvesting trips for natural wild rice.

Natural wild rice generally requires some moving water, with rivers, flowages, and lakes with inlets and outlets being optimal areas for growth. Wild rice grows well at depths of 0.5 to 3 feet of water, although some plants may be found in deeper waters. As an annual plant, natural wild rice develops each spring from seeds that fell into the water during a previous fall. Germination requires a dormancy period of three to four months of cold, nearly freezing water (35q F or colder). Seeds are unlikely to survive prolonged dry conditions.

The entire process, from germination of a new plant to dropping of mature seeds, requires about 110 to 130 days, depending on temperature and other environmental factors. Seeds begin ripening at the top of the stem and then ripen over several days on an individual plant. Plants within a stand ripen at different times because of genetic, developmental, and environmental variation. This staggered maturation process means that ripe seeds may be available within individual stands for several weeks, and across the entire range of natural wild rice in Minnesota for a month or longer.

The earliest laws and regulations concerning wild rice in Minnesota focused on wild rice harvest and date back more than 75 years. Today, there is a complex mix of tribal, federal, state, and local laws and regulations. These are associated with the formal recognition of the significance of natural wild rice and its protection, management, and harvest. The application of regulations varies by jurisdiction (i.e., tribal versus state) and geography (i.e., on-reservation versus off- reservation, or within various ceded territories). Regulatory authority governing different aspects of wild rice management occurs within several state agencies yet within state statutes there is no unifying policy to provide overall guidance in implementation.

2 S-21

Threats Despite its rich history and abundance in Minnesota, natural wild rice faces many current and potential threats in this region. In general, any factor that can affect water quality, seasonal water levels, lakebed conditions, regional climate, aquatic vegetation, or the natural genetic diversity of wild rice could potentially threaten natural stands. These threats may work in concert or individually to damage wild rice stands.

Important threats that impact local stands of natural wild rice include changes in local hydrology due to dams and channelization, water-based recreation and shoreland development, and mining and other industrial activities. Although the impacts are to local stands, the cumulative effect of these threats can have statewide implications. Hydrological impacts and shoreland development are particularly important.

On a statewide and regional scale, the most important threats are the potential loss of genetic integrity, invasive species, and climate change. Nearly all of the concern expressed about wild rice genetics focuses on the potential of genetic engineering. Invasive species are an ongoing statewide issue impacting aquatic systems in general. Climate change has the potential for the greatest long-term impacts on natural wild rice.

As citizens become more distant from positive experiences with natural wild rice through harvesting, hunting, trapping, or wildlife watching, they are less likely to recognize the very real impacts that the previously noted threats could have on natural wild rice in Minnesota. This loss of appreciation, while not a direct threat to the wild rice resource, nevertheless increases the risks because the level of resource protection and management is often based on the perceived value of a resource.

Unfortunately wild rice harvesters are relatively few in number and have experienced a long- term decline, although the number of tribal harvesters has rebounded in recent years. Only about 4000-5000 people participate in hand harvesting natural stands of wild rice annually.

The future of natural wild rice in Minnesota will depend in large part on its protection and management by state and tribal natural resource agencies. The role of the agencies is complicated by the limitations of their authority and the challenges posed by multiple jurisdictions, annual variability of wild rice crops due to weather and other factors, and lack of information concerning the natural ecology of wild rice, historical losses, trends in abundance and distribution, threats to its future, and a better understanding of wild rice harvesters.

Recommendations The following recommendations were developed with valuable input and discussion from the members of the Wild Rice Study Technical Team and Partnership Team. However, the MNDNR assumes sole responsibility for these recommendations as written and presented here.

MNDNR recognizes the importance of protecting natural wild rice beds from genetic modification and agrees with wild rice stakeholders that this protection is critical to the future of this resource. We strongly support the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board in adopting rules

3 S-21

that require an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed release of genetically engineered wild rice (MS 116C.94 Subd.1b).

Recommendation 1 Recodify current wild rice harvest statutes and rules to remove duplication and inconsistencies. Rationale: The state’s wild rice statutes and rules have been developed and modified piecemeal over a long period of time. As a result they contain a number of inconsistencies and duplication. Recommendation 2 Establish statutory policy guidance on wild rice and its management. Rationale: Within state statutes there is no unifying policy that provides direction to agencies responsible for some aspect of wild rice management. Recommendation 3 The MNDNR will convene an interagency workgroup in 2008 to identify desired statutory updates in harvest regulations. Rationale: Harvest regulations and license fee structure should be reviewed by an interagency work group for suggested changes. Recommendation 4 The MNDNR will designate and publish a list of important natural wild rice areas. Rationale: Recognizing important wild rice areas and publishing the list would call attention to the importance of these areas, indicate management priorities, and provide a formal list that may prove useful for local units of government that are considering zoning and surface use restrictions. Recommendation 5 The MNDNR will convene a standing interagency wild rice workgroup to share information and develop recommendations for inventory methodology and trend assessments, education and information outreach, lake planning and management, harvester recruitment and retention, and other management issues as they arise. Rationale: Comprehensive protection and management of wild rice involves multiple agencies. Management needs include better inventory information including consistent methodology for trend analysis, documenting natural genetic diversity, and establishing long-term case studies on identified lakes. Recommendation 6 Increase intensive natural wild rice lake management efforts and accelerate the restoration of wild rice stands within its historic range. Rationale: Protecting and managing natural wild rice resources on many lakes requires active annual management activities to maintain free flowing outlets. Active management is also required to restore wild rice to wildlife habitat areas within its historic range. These efforts should be accelerated as funding, time, and opportunity permit.

4 S-21

Sacred Food and Medicine

Wild rice, or manoomin, is a sacred food and medicine integral to the religion, culture, livelihood, and identity of the Anishinaabeg. According to our sacred migration story, in the long ago a prophet at the third of seven fires beheld a vision from the Creator calling the Anishinaabe to move west (to a land previously occupied long ago) until they found the place “where food grows on the water.” The Anishinaabeg of the upper Mississippi and western Great Lakes have for generations understood their connection to anishinaabe akiing (the land of the people) in terms of the presence of this plant as a gift from the Creator. In the words of White Earth’s Tribal Historian, Andy Favorite, “Wild rice is part of our prophecy, our process of being human, our process of being Anishinaabe … we are here because of the wild rice. We are living a prophecy fulfilled.”

In our Ojibwe language, manoomin is animate, grammatically referred to as “him/her” not “it,” a non-human being, not just an inanimate “resource.” It is both difficult and of utmost importance to adequately translate and appreciate this worldview in the language of mainstream culture and society with its scientific advisory boards for the study of humans and animals but not plants. According to Anishinaabe author, Basil Johnson, “…in essence each plant ... was a composite being, possessing an incorporeal substance, its own unique soul-spirit. It was the vitalizing substance that gave to its physical form growth, and self-healing.” The Anishinaabeg believe that wild rice will always grow where they live. Menominee chief Chieg Nio’pet said his people did not need to sow rice because it would follow them wherever they went. He told of how Shawano Lake never had manoomin until the Menominee moved there. Similarly when they were banned from Lake Winnebago, the rice that had been plentiful there all but disappeared. Whatever happens to the land and to manooomin happens to the Anishinaabe.

Our ceremonies and aadizookanag -sacred stories- also tell of our people’s relations with this plant. White Earth Anishinaabe, Joe LaGarde, notes that wild rice and water are the only two things required at every ceremony. Manoomin accompanies our celebrations, mourning, initiations, and feasts, as both a food and a spiritual presence. It holds special significance in traditional stories, which are only told during ricing time or when the ground is frozen. “In these stories, wild rice is a crucial element in the realm of the supernaturals and in their interactions with animals and humans; these legends explain the origin of wild rice and recount its discovery…” by Wenabozhoo, or Nanabozho, the principal manidoo or spirit in our sacred aadizookanag.

Manoomin is just as central to our future survival as our past. While we try to overcome tremendous obstacles to our collective health, the sacred food of manoomin is both food and medicine. “Wild rice is consequently a very special gift, with medicinal as well as nutritional values—belief reflected in the Ojibwe use of wild rice as a food to promote recovery from sickness as well as for ceremonial purposes.” (Vennum 62). Manoomin is inextricably bound to the religion and identity of the Anishinaabeg. This is why these threats are potentially so devastating and why it is essential that the sanctity and integrity of this plant be preserved. If artificially produced or engineered varieties of wild rice were to compromise the wild manoomin that has existed in the lakes for thousands of years, it will compromise the Anishinaabe people and our way of life. Joe LaGarde puts it plainly, “If we lose our rice, we won’t exist as a people for long. We’ll be done too.”

Erma Vizenor, Tribal Chairwoman, White Earth Nation With the participation of Carlton College Students.

5 S-21

Introduction

This report fulfills the requirements of Session Law 2007, Chapter 57, Article 1, Section 163:

By February 15, 2008, the commissioner of natural resources must prepare a study for natural wild rice that includes: (1) the current location and estimated acreage and area of natural stands; (2) potential threats to natural stands, including, but not limited to, development pressure, water levels, pollution, invasive species, and genetically engineered strains; and (3) recommendations to the house and senate committees with jurisdiction over natural resources on protecting and increasing natural wild rice stands in the state.

In developing the study, the commissioner must contact and ask for comments from the state's wild rice industry, the commissioner of agriculture, local officials with significant areas of wild rice within their jurisdictions, tribal leaders within affected federally recognized tribes, and interested citizens.

In fulfilling these requirements, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) established a Technical Team of wild rice experts from State, Tribal, and Federal governments; the Minnesota cultivated wild rice industry; Ducks Unlimited; Save Our Rice Alliance (SORA), an organization of interested citizens who hand harvest natural wild rice; White Earth Land Recovery Project; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Wisconsin (Appendix A). The MNDNR also established a Partnership Team representing the Minnesota wild rice industry, the state commissioner of agriculture, the Association of Minnesota Counties, tribal leaders within affected federally recognized tribes, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, Minnesota Waterfowl Association, and SORA (Appendix A).

The Technical Team, working with MNDNR staff, developed drafts of the wild rice study document for review by the Partnership Team. The collaboration of these two teams was instrumental in producing this document for MNDNR review and approval. The MNDNR is indebted to team members for their contributions of time, expertise, and hard work. It should be clear, however, that the MNDNR assumes sole responsibility for the content and recommendations of this document.

The wild rice study document and its appendices are intended to provide the reader with a thorough background on the importance of natural wild rice to Minnesota, its natural ecology and distribution, threats to its future, challenges in managing the resource, and recommendations to insure its abundance for future generations.

6 S-21

Importance of Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota

As directed by the legislature, the wild rice study document focuses on natural wild rice. For this study, we define natural wild rice as native species of wild rice (Zizania) that are growing in public waters and are not subject to cultivation. The simplest description of natural wild rice in Minnesota is that it is an annual aquatic grass that produces an edible grain.

This simple description, of course, does not do justice to this unique and valuable plant. History is replete with examples of its importance to wildlife and value to humans both nutritionally and culturally. Wild rice (manoomin to the Ojibwe) is a spiritually significant resource for Native Americans in the Great Lakes region, and it has been for centuries. Nowhere has this grain been more important, nor had a richer history, than in Minnesota. No state harbors more acres of natural wild rice than Minnesota (Moyle and Krueger 1964). No other native Minnesota plant approaches the level of cultural, ecological, and economic values embodied by natural wild rice.

Cultural Importance Natural wild rice has been hand harvested as a source of food in the Great Lakes region for thousands of years. Evidence of its human use dates back to the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods, more than 2000 years ago (Valppu 2000). Archeological evidence indicates that from the 1600s to the 1800s wild rice was a staple food for the Algonquian and Dakota peoples throughout the area now known as Minnesota. It has been important historically for gifting and trading, as well. For example, when Dakota Chief Wabasha hosted Zebulon Pike in 1805 he offered gifts of wild rice to the explorer (Vennum 1988).

The Ojibwe people have a special cultural and spiritual tie to natural wild rice. Their Migration Story describes how they undertook a westward migration from the eastern coast of North America. Tribal prophets had foretold that this migration would continue until the Ojibwe people found “the food that grows on water” (Benton-Banai 1988). That food was wild rice, known as manoomin, and is revered to this day by the Ojibwe as a special gift from the Creator (Ackley 2000; Schlender 2000).

Early European explorers and fur traders were impressed with the availability and nutritional quality of wild rice, and attempts were made to import it to Europe as early as 1790 (Oelke 2007). Many immigrants to Minnesota adopted hand harvesting of natural wild rice as an annual ritual. The importance of this harvest to European settlers lessened only when cultivated non- native grains became more readily available.

The tradition of hand harvesting natural wild rice continues to this day among both tribal and nontribal cultures. This tradition has been preserved through tribal code and state regulations that reflect traditional methods of harvesting. State statutes in Minnesota include regulations that restrict the maximum length (18 feet) and width (36 inches) of the harvesting boat, as well as the maximum weight (1 pound) and length (30 inches) of hand flails. The regulations also require that push poles have forks 12 inches or less in length. The use of any machine or mechanical device to harvest natural wild rice is generally prohibited.

7 S-21

Annual sales of state licenses for wild rice harvesting peaked in 1968 at over 16,000. In recent years, annual sales have averaged fewer than 1500. However, because in many instances tribal harvesters are not required to buy state licenses, state numbers do not adequately reflect the numbers of individuals participating in wild rice harvesting. It is thought that more than 3000 tribal members participate in wild rice harvesting providing the statewide total (tribal and nontribal) of 4,000 to 5,000 individuals.

Annual harvests can vary greatly. Rice productivity, weather, and harvester participation are all important factors. The MNDNR survey of state licensees from 2004 to 2006 found the average annual harvest to be 430 pounds per individual (MNDNR 2007). Aitkin, Cass, Crow Wing, Itasca, and St. Louis counties accounted for over 70% of the harvesting trips for natural wild rice. Estimates of annual harvest of natural stands in Minnesota between 1940 and 1972 ranged from 20 thousand to nearly 4 million pounds of unprocessed grain (Oelke et al. 1973).

Another aspect of the cultural importance of wild rice is its nutritional value. Noted for its importance as a whole grain, wild rice is an excellent source of complex carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, fiber and protein. It is a particularly good source of potassium, zinc and riboflavin (Oelke 2007). Access to traditional foods is felt to be an important element of restoring individual and community health of the Ojibwe people (W. LaDuke, personal communication). Natural wild rice is one of the mainstays of traditional foods for the Ojibwe community.

Concerns for the preservation of hand harvesting traditions and related issues led to the formation in 2007 of a tribal and nontribal partnership called Save Our Rice Alliance (SORA). The stated mission of SORA is “To preserve and enhance the culture, economy, and sustainability of native wild rice” (A. Drewes, personal communication).

Ecological Importance The value of natural wild rice to wildlife has been long appreciated by American Indians and was marveled at by early European explorers (Jenks 1900). Jonathan Carver traveled through eastern portions of North America in the 1760s and observed of wild rice that “the sweetness and nutritious quality of it attracts an infinite number of wild fowl of every kind which flock from distant climes to enjoy this rare repast, and by it become inexpressively fat and delicious” (Stoddard 1957).

Both migrating and resident wildlife rely on the nutritious and abundant seeds of natural wild rice. One acre of natural wild rice can produce more than 500 pounds of seed. These seeds have long been recognized as an important source of food during fall migrations (McAtee 1917). Martin and Uhler (1939) listed wild rice as the ninth most important source of food for ducks throughout the United States and Canada, and the third most important source of food for ducks in the eastern portions of the continent. Research conducted on the Chippewa National Forest found that natural wild rice was the most important food for mallards during the fall (Stoudt 1944). Although the value of wild rice to mallards, wood ducks, and ring-necked ducks is most commonly recognized, other ducks such as black ducks, pintail, teal, wigeon, redheads, and lesser scaup also use stands of wild rice (Rossman et al. 1982, Huseby 1997).

8 S-21

The stems of wild rice provide nesting material for such species as common loons, red-necked grebes, and muskrats; and critical brood cover for waterfowl. The entire wild rice plant provides food during the summer for herbivores such as Canada geese, trumpeter swans, muskrats, beaver, white-tailed deer, and moose (Martin et al.1951, Tester 1995). In addition, rice worms and other insect larvae feed heavily on natural wild rice. These, in turn, provide a rich source of food for blackbirds, bobolinks, rails, and wrens. In the spring, decaying rice straw supports a diverse community of invertebrates and thus provides an important source of food for a variety of wetland wildlife including birds, small fish, and amphibians. Indeed, every stage of growth of natural wild rice provides food for wildlife (McAtee 1917, Stoudt 1944).

As a result, wild rice lakes and streams are breeding and nesting areas for many species. More than 17 species of wildlife listed in the MNDNR’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2006) as “species of greatest conservation need” use wild rice lakes as habitat for reproduction or foraging (Henderson 1980, Martin et al.1951). Listed bird species can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Minnesota birds that utilize wild rice habitat and are listed in Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare as species of special concern.

Birds of Special Concern Life Cycle Stage American Black Duck Breeding and migration Lesser Scaup Migrant Northern Pintail Migration, Rare Breeder Trumpeter Swan Breeding and migration American Bittern Breeding and migration Least Bittern Breeding and migration Red-necked Grebe Breeding and migration Common Loon Breeding and migration Sora Rail Breeding and migration King Rail Casual migrant Virginia Rail Breeding and migration Yellow Rail Breeding and migration Black Tern Breeding and migration Bobolink Foraging and migration Rusty Blackbird Foraging and migration Sedge Wren Breeding and migration Bald Eagle Foraging and migration

Natural wild rice has other ecological values as well. Emergent aquatic plants such as wild rice, bulrush, and cattails protect shorelines and provide habitat for fish (Radomski and Goeman 2001). Dense stands of wild rice stabilize loose soils and form natural windbreaks that can limit the mixing of soil nutrients into the water column (Meeker 2000). In addition, natural wild rice has relatively high requirements for nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen (Oelke et al. 2000). During periods of rapid growth, which occurs in spring and summer, the plants sequester

9 S-21

these nutrients. Thus stands of natural wild rice counter the effects of nutrient loading and the potential increases in algal growth and lake turbidity.

Economic Importance Prior to European settlement of Minnesota, natural wild rice was the most important grain available to native peoples, early explorers, and fur traders (Vennum1988). Properly dried, and stored in clean, dry conditions, uncooked wild rice has an estimated shelf life of up to 10 years. One pound yields up to ten and a half cups of cooked wild rice (Oelke 2007). As a dietary staple that was so easily stored and used, wild rice had considerable economic value. With the influx of immigrant settlers and the agricultural production of non-native grains, the overall economic value of wild rice waned. Nevertheless, harvest of natural wild rice continued to be popular in Minnesota. During the 1960s, sales of state licenses averaged over 10,000 per year.

The economic value of wild rice is reflected in the efforts of many to expand its occurrence into new waters. Native peoples have long sown wild rice to create additional sources of grain (Vennum 1988). Waterfowl hunters have commonly planted wild rice to attract ducks. The demand for seed of wild rice and other aquatic wildlife foods presumably fostered the establishment of Wildlife Nurseries, Inc. in Oshkosh, Wisconsin in 1898 (Oelke 2007). This firm continues selling wild rice for planting today. Conservation agencies have long participated in planting efforts as well, working to establish new stands of wild rice and perpetuate traditional areas (Moyle 1944b).

David Owens noted the potential benefits of cultivating wild rice as early as 1852 (Vennum 1988). In 1853, Oliver H. Kelley published an article discussing the merits of wild rice cultivation. Albert E. Jenks discussed wild rice cultivation as part of “agricultural development” in 1901. Yet not until 50 years later did James and Gerald Godward pioneer the first real efforts. They began production of cultivated wild rice in central Minnesota, near Merrifield, in 1950 (Oelke 2007).

The 1950s and 1960s may well have been the peak of modern hand harvesting of wild rice. From 1957 to 1963 the state of Minnesota sold an average of 10,012 wild rice harvest licenses (Table 2). The average annual harvest of unprocessed wild rice exceeded 2 million pounds or about 227 pounds per Table 2. Hand harvesting of picker per year (Moyle and Krueger 1964). natural wild rice 1957-1963. As with other commodities, the price paid for Year Licenses sold Harvest * unprocessed natural wild rice can vary considerably. 1957 7,535 1,057,000 Although pricing is mainly determined by supply, 1958 9,702 3,224,000 marketing also plays a role. During the past 70 years, the 1959 9,332 2,067,000 price of one pound of unprocessed wild rice has ranged 1960 9,664 2,301,000 from $0.10 in 1940 to $2.17 in 1966 (Oelke 2007). 1961 14,660 2,772,000 Adjusted for inflation these prices in today’s dollars are 1962 6,709 1,292,000 equivalent to $0.75 and $13 per pound, respectively. The 1966 harvest of 924,000 lbs would have been worth over 1963 12,482 3,212,000 $12 million today. Since 1990, the price paid for unprocessed rice from the Leech Lake Reservation has *Harvest is in unprocessed pounds varied between $1.00 and $1.50 per pound (R. Robinson,

10 S-21

Jr., personal communication). Sales during this period ranged from approximately 7,400 to 280,000 pounds.

Prior to 1970, Minnesota provided half of the global market supply of wild rice. Most of this rice was from hand harvested natural stands. By 1990, the large-scale production of cultivated wild rice had expanded, and natural wild rice accounted for less than 10% of the global market supply. Cultivated wild rice from Minnesota provided 40% of the market and California provided 50% (Lee 2000). California still leads the cultivated wild rice industry. The total annual yield of cultivated and hand harvested wild rice in Minnesota today ranges from four to eight million pounds.

Although cultivated rice dominates these production numbers, hand harvested natural wild rice remains a vital component of tribal and local economies in Minnesota. The MNDNR survey of 2004 – 2006 state license buyers found an average annual individual harvest of 430 pounds. In 2007, nearly 300,000 pounds of unprocessed rice were purchased from LLBO-licensed harvesters. At $1.50 per pound, this harvest generated more than $400,000 of income for tribal members (R. Robinson, Jr., personal communication).

11 S-21

Wild Rice Background

Taxonomy Native North American wild rice is classified as a grass in the family Poaceae and the genus Zizania. The most common species throughout Minnesota is northern wild rice, or Zizania palustris L. (Ownbey and Morley, 1991). Two varieties of natural wild rice occur in this region and in other parts of the Upper Midwest: Z. palustris var. palustris and Z. palustris var. interior (Gleason and Cronquist, 1991; Flora of North America, 1993+).

A more southern and eastern species, Zizania aquatica L., is uncommon but thought by many to occur in Minnesota as well. The precise distribution of Z. aquatica is unclear because of differences in taxonomic interpretations and potentially overlapping ranges. Z. aquatica is physically larger than Z. palustris but its grain is more slender and difficult to harvest. Both of these species are native only to North America.

Distribution and Abundance Minnesota historically harbored more acres of natural wild rice than any other state (Moyle and Krueger 1964). Despite losses of wild rice habitat, the importance of Minnesota as a center of natural wild rice abundance has actually increased as wild rice acreage has declined elsewhere in the United States. For thousands of years, wild rice thrived in shallow lakes, rivers, and streams left behind by melting glaciers. Although stands of natural wild rice occur most commonly in areas of glacial moraines, such as in central and north-central Minnesota, the historic range of wild rice included all of Minnesota (Moyle 1944b).

Its range also extended westward into the present-day Dakotas and eastward to the Atlantic coast. While not distributed evenly, wild rice likely occurred in many places where its ecological requirements were met. Because wild rice also was planted in areas where it did not occur naturally, it is sometimes difficult today to distinguish between historically natural stands and successfully seeded stands (Vennum 1988).

An updated inventory of the distribution and abundance of natural wild rice was compiled for this study by selected members of the Technical Team and the MNDNR (Appendix B). Data are from lake-habitat surveys, reported observations, and interviews with field personnel of state, federal, and tribal agencies. Although this inventory provides a marked improvement in our understanding of natural wild rice distribution in Minnesota, it should be considered a minimum estimate. The data for many wild rice lakes, streams and rivers is incomplete or totally lacking.

Based on this inventory, the range of natural wild rice today includes 55 counties in Minnesota (Figure 1). The only Minnesota counties without significant populations of natural wild rice are along the western and southwestern boundaries of the state. It should be noted, however, that historical records of wild rice include herbarium specimens that were collected in several western counties not documented by the current inventory. These counties include Pipestone, Cottonwood, Chippewa, Swift, Clay, and western Polk (Moyle 1939, Ownbey and Morley, 1991).

12 S-21

Figure 1. Distribution of wild rice lakes and wild rice harvesting pressure in Minnesota.

13 S-21

Stands of natural wild rice were present or occurred in recent history on approximately 1,286 lakes and river/stream segments (Figure 1). These areas support a minimum of 64,328 acres of natural wild rice when growing conditions are favorable. These areas vary from large, shallow lakes dominated by natural wild rice stands (i.e. Nature’s Lake in Cass County) to significant bays within large fish lakes (i.e. Leech Lake) to a narrow fringe along lake/river shorelines. The greatest concentrations of lakes that support natural wild rice are in Aitkin (4,859 acres), Cass (8,323 acres), Crow Wing (3,751 acres), Itasca (8,448 acres), and St. Louis (8,939 acres) counties. These counties contain over 60% of the inventoried natural wild rice acreage in Minnesota. These counties also account for over 70% of the harvesting trips for natural wild rice (MNDNR 2006 harvest survey, Appendix C).

The abundance of natural wild rice in Minnesota today is largely due to abundant suitable habitat, favorable climate, and natural genetic variability that allows for environmental selection of traits that perform well under varying conditions. Studies in Wisconsin found sufficient genetic diversity between geographically separated stands of wild rice to potentially identify regional populations. Within-stand diversity also varied greatly, with larger and denser stands having greater genetic diversity (Waller et al. 2000).

Life History

While the historical range of natural wild rice illustrates its broad distribution, its specific occurrence and abundance is in large part dependent on local environmental conditions. For example, clear to moderately colored (stained) water is preferred, as darkly stained water can limit sunlight and may hinder early plant development.

Wild rice grows within a wide range of chemical parameters (i.e. alkalinity, salinity, pH, and iron; Meeker 2000). However, productivity is highest in water with a pH of 6.0 to 8.0 and alkalinity greater than 40 ppm. While researchers have observed that natural wild rice stands are relatively nutrient rich, excess levels of some nutrients, especially phosphorus, can have significant adverse effects on productivity (Persell and Swan 1986).

Natural wild rice generally requires some moving water, with rivers, flowages, and lakes with inlets and outlets being optimal areas for growth. Seasonal water depth is critical, however. Water levels that are relatively stable or decline gradually during the growing season are preferred. In particular, abrupt increases during the early growing season can uproot plants. Wild rice grows well at depths of 0.5 to 3 feet of water, although some plants may be found in deeper waters (M. McDowell, J. Persell personal communication).

Shallower sites can allow strong competition from perennial emergent plant species, while deeper sites can stress wild rice plants and limit seed production. Although wild rice may occur in a variety of lake bottoms, the most consistently productive stands are those with soft, organic sediment (Lee 1986). Nitrogen and phosphorus are limiting nutrients for wild rice (Carson 2002).

As an annual plant, natural wild rice develops each spring from seeds that fell into the water and settled into the sediment during a previous fall. Germination requires a dormancy period of three

14 S-21

to four months of cold, nearly freezing water (35q F or colder). Seeds are unlikely to survive prolonged dry conditions.

Seed germination typically occurs when the substrate and surrounding water temperatures reach about 40q F. Depending on water depth, latitude, and the progression of spring weather, wild rice germinates in Minnesota sometime in April, well ahead of most but not all perennial plants. Within three weeks, the seedlings develop roots and submerged leaves.

The emergent stage begins with the development of one or two floating leaves and continues with the development of several aerial leaves two to three weeks later. The floating leaves appear in late May to mid June in Minnesota, again dependent on water depth, latitude, and weather. Because of the natural buoyancy of the plant, it is at this stage of growth that wild rice is most susceptible to uprooting by rapidly rising water levels. Plants can be significantly stressed even when they remain rooted.

Natural wild rice begins to flower in mid to late July in Minnesota. Flowering times are dependent on both day length and temperature. Flowers are produced in a branching panicle. Female flowers (pistillate or seed-producing) occur at the top of the panicle on appressed branches. Male flowers (staminate or pollen-producing) occur on the lower portion of the panicle on nearly horizontal branches. Natural wild rice is primarily pollinated by wind. High temperatures and low humidity can negatively affect fertilization rates.

Cross-pollination is typical in natural wild rice stands because female flowers develop, become receptive, and are pollinated before male flowers on the same plant shed pollen. Cross- pollination is further enhanced by plant-to-plant variation in flowering times within stands. This cross-pollination within and among wild rice populations helps to preserve the genetic variability and thus biologic potential for wild rice to adapt to changing conditions such as the highly variable climate of the Great Lakes region.

The genetic variability that exists today in natural wild rice may be a critical determinant of whether stands of wild rice can adapt to long-term changes in regional climate. Studies in northern Wisconsin found sufficient genetic diversity among geographically distinct stands of natural wild rice to identify four regional populations. The degree of diversity within stands varied widely as well, with larger and denser stands having greater diversity (Waller et al. 2000).

Wild rice seeds are visible two weeks after fertilization, and they mature in four to five weeks. Immature seeds have a green outer layer that typically turns purplish black as the seed reaches maturity. Seeds begin ripening at the top of the stem and then ripen over several days on an individual plant. Plants within a stand ripen at different times because of genetic and developmental variation. In general, natural wild rice in rivers ripens earlier than that in lakes, rice in shallow waters earlier than that in deeper waters, and rice in northern Minnesota earlier than that in more southerly stands.

This staggered maturation process means that ripe seeds may be available within individual stands for several weeks, and across the entire range of natural wild rice in Minnesota for a month or longer. This extended period of “shattering”, or dropping of ripened seed, is an

15 S-21

important mechanism to ensure that some seeds will survive environmental conditions and perpetuate the natural stand. The entire process, from germination of a new plant to dropping of mature seeds, requires about 110 to 130 days, depending on water and air temperatures and other environmental factors.

Not all wild rice seeds germinate the following year. Seeds may remain dormant in the bottom sediment for many years to several decades if conditions are not suitable for germination. This mechanism allows wild rice populations to survive through years of high water levels or storms that reduce or eliminate productivity. Moreover, natural wild rice can germinate and re-colonize sites after other species have been reduced or eliminated by environmental disturbance (Meeker 2000).

Even under ideal growing conditions, populations of natural wild rice undergo approximately three to five year cycles in which productivity can vary greatly (Jenks 1900, Moyle 1944b, Pastor and Durkee Walker 2006, Durkee Walker et al. 2006). Highly productive years are frequently followed by a year of low productivity, that is then followed by a gradual recovery in wild rice yield (Moyle 1944b, Grava and Raisanen 1978, Atkins 1986, Lee 1986, Aiken et al. 1988, Archibold et al. 1989).

Recent studies suggest that oscillations in wild rice productivity may be caused in part by the accumulation of old straw from previous growth that inhibits plant growth and seed production (Pastor and Durkee Walker 2006, Durkee Walker et al. 2006). In particular, the amount of wild rice straw, its stage of decay, and its tissue chemistry likely affect nutrient availability, influence wild rice productivity, and thus drive cycling of wild rice populations (Durkee Walker, Ph.D. thesis 2008).

Legal Considerations

The earliest laws and regulations concerning wild rice in Minnesota date back more than 75 years. While some harvesting regulations existed through earlier session laws and statutes, comprehensive state regulation of the wild rice harvest was apparently first codified in 1939. These regulations controlled methods and locations of harvest to reduce damage to natural beds and to distribute the harvest.

Today, there is a complex mix of tribal, federal, state, and local laws and regulations. These are associated with the formal recognition of the significance of natural wild rice and its protection, management, and harvest. It is difficult to capture all the important details that exist within these myriad regulations in a summary overview. The application of regulations varies by jurisdiction (i.e., tribal versus state) and geography (i.e., on-reservation versus off-reservation, or within various ceded territories). In addition, some regulations may be changed over time.

The following discussion is not intended to provide a complete legal brief of the law as it relates to natural wild rice. Rather the intent is to indicate the complexity of this law and to make clear the multiple jurisdictions that have recognized legal interests in Minnesota wild rice.

16 S-21

Treaties and Tribal Regulations

Tribal regulations of the harvest and protection of wild rice within reservation boundaries vary from tribe to tribe. Therefore individual tribal governments or their natural resource departments should be contacted for details.

In addition to tribal regulations, treaties and other agreements with the U.S. government reserved off-reservation harvesting rights for some tribes. For example, the Ojibwe tribes that co-signed the Treaty of 1837 reserved the right to gather wild rice from the lands ceded in that treaty. These include an area that eventually became part of east-central Minnesota. The standing of these off-reservation rights was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999. 1,2,3

Similar off-reservation rights are reserved for other Ojibwe tribes in the 1854 ceded territory, in northeastern Minnesota. Rights of traditional tribal harvesting have also been preserved through other agreements between tribes and the U.S. government. For example, in the early 1900s the U.S. began buying lands adjacent to wild rice stands on Minnesota lakes. These were stands that had traditionally been harvested or lands that were to be used as rice camps by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (MCT). Lands were purchased and placed into trust status on Swamp, Mallard and Minnewawa Lakes in Aitkin County; on Basswood Lake in Becker County; on Leech, Mud, and Laura Lakes in Cass County; on Lower Dean Lake in Crow Wing County; on Sugar and Bowstring Lakes in Itasca County; on Onamia and Ogechie Lakes in Mille Lacs County; and on Star Lake in Ottertail County.

MCT members can harvest wild rice on these lakes with a tribal identification card issued under the sovereign authority of their respective tribal governments and current Minnesota statute (MS 84.10). Similarly, local tribal members can harvest wild rice on Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge and on Tamarack National Wildlife Refuge under the 1936 Collier agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Biological Survey (predecessor to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

This Wild Rice Study document is not intended to provide an indepth analysis of treaties and subsequent agreements affecting tribal harvest of wild rice in Minnesota. Tribal governments have sovereignty over the harvest of wild rice within the boundaries of their reservations. Some tribal governments also have the authority to regulate harvest by tribal members within certain ceded lands, while other tribal rights exist for specific off-reservation waters. The state of Minnesota has jurisdiction over the wild rice harvest by nontribal harvesters within ceded territories and over all off-reservation wild rice harvest outside of the ceded lands.

1,2,3[Minnesota, et al., Petitioners v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians et al. [No. 97-1337]. 2 See McClurken et al., 2003: 30 for a map of ceded lands in Minnesota under this and subsequent treaties. 3 See McClurken et al., 2003: 486 for exact treaty language pertaining to cession of land and gathering wild rice.

17 S-21

State and Local Regulations

State laws addressing issues of wild rice in Minnesota date back to 1929 or perhaps earlier. These statutes state that wild rice and other aquatic vegetation is owned by the state and that a person may not acquire a property interest in or destroy wild rice except as allowed by law (MS 84.091). State statutes also regulate the harvest of natural wild rice with the exceptions of tribal jurisdictions and regulations, as noted above (MS 84.10, 84.15, 84.027, 84.28). State regulations address the methods and timing of natural wild rice harvest (MS 84.105, 84.111, and 84.152). In addition, several Agency rules also govern the harvest of wild rice in Minnesota (Minnesota Rules 6284.0300 to 6284.0700).

Because State statutes and rules affecting wild rice in Minnesota have been developed and modified over many years, they contain inconsistencies and duplications. These laws could be clarified and made more concise through recodification.

A long-standing tradition of tribal governments and the state of Minnesota involved posting of “closed” signage on selected individual lakes until the wild rice was deemed ripe for harvest. In 1996, after years of criticism from harvesters about particular decisions to open or close wild rice stands, a state law was passed that would open the ricing season on July 15 each year (MS 84.105). The new law also made it illegal to pick wild rice that is not ripe. Wild rice usually ripens in Minnesota between the third week of August and the second week of September, thus the new law was intended to employ a “pick when ripe” philosophy. The opening date was set early enough so that it would always precede the ripening of the rice, and it would also help avoid opening day rushes that can potentially damage rice stands.

One of the rationales behind the new state law was that most other plant products harvested from the wild are picked when the harvester judges them as ready for food, decorative, or medicinal use. Harvesting wild rice before it is ripe produces a product that has no value as a food or cash crop. The new law reduced the need for extensive MNDNR staff time and subjective judgments. It also helps avoid the opening day “stampede” that seems to be associated with all “opening days”, which are often perceived as the best day based on “first-come, first-served”.

Most of the treaties, agreements, and statutes discussed above are concerned with the harvest of the wild rice grain rather than with protection or enhancement of natural wild rice ecosystems. Harvest issues are moot if the wild rice resource is lost due to damage of natural stands. The viability of these stands often depends on active management.

For example, more than 200 wild rice lakes benefit annually from removal of beaver dams. These dams block the outlets of significant wild rice lakes, and their removal allows the outlets to flow freely; reducing the threat of excessive flooding of wild rice stands. The authority to remove beaver, beaver dams, and beaver lodges is found in MS 97A.045 Subd.1; 97A.401 Subd. 5; and 97B.655, Subd. 2. Without these statutes the current management efforts of the DNR and its partners (i.e., Ducks Unlimited) would be significantly restricted.

Wild rice and other aquatic plants are protected from unauthorized removal under the MNDNR Aquatic Plant Management Program (MS 103G.615). Guidelines prohibit the removal of

18 S-21

emergent aquatic plants, including wild rice, without an approved permit. Notable exceptions involve the building of duck hunting blinds and gaining access to open water from shorelines. Removal of aquatic plants is allowed for such access though removal is limited to an area 15 feet or less in width.

Less direct, although important, protection is also provided through shoreland protection laws and regulations (MS 103F.201 through 103F.221). This protection is based on a system of classification for lakes and rivers that applies different zoning regulations depending on classification. Classifications include three for lakes and six for rivers. These regulations are implemented by local units of government within a statewide statutory framework that dictates minimum standards. These standards address issues of shoreland development and uses such as sewage treatment, storm water management, minimum lot size and water frontage, building and septic system setbacks, building heights, subdivisions, and alterations of land and vegetation close to the shore.

The stakeholders group for a pilot project in the five-county north-central lakes area surrounding Brainerd raised concerns about increased shoreline development potentially threatening water quality and the traditional use of individual lakes. One result was the development of alternative shoreland management standards through an advisory committee. The alternative standards provide options for local governments to address specific shoreland issues identified in the five- county area. Subsequently, local governments outside the pilot area began considering elements of these alternative standards for use in their own shoreland ordinances.

In 2005, for example, Beltrami County initiated a review of all of their Natural Environment Lakes in cooperation with the MNDNR and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA). The MNDNR Section of Wildlife and Division of Ecological Resources procured funding to hire two 2-person crews to conduct site visits to inventory these lakes. Surveys were completed with additional funding from the MNDNR Section of Wildlife in 2006. As a result of this work and the input from a Citizen Advisory Committee, Beltrami County rewrote their shoreland ordinance and reclassified their Natural Environment Lakes. They created one additional lake class, Sensitive Area, with protection criteria intermediate between Natural Environment and the more protective Special Protection. The new Beltrami County Shoreland Ordinance was voted on and approved by the Beltrami County Board in December 2006 (R. Gorham personal communication).

Alternative shoreland management standards may include the promotion of conservation subdivisions over conventional subdivisions (i.e., lot and block); multiple classifications on a single lake (i.e. Natural Environment bay within a General Development lake); districts designated as Sensitive Areas for lakeshore segments so that development standards follow Natural Environment Lake class standards; and a new classification of Special Protection for lakes that have considerable wetland fringe, shallow depth, or unique fish and wildlife habitat.

While these alternative standards can provide protection for natural wild rice habitat, local governments too often lack information on the locations of significant stands of natural wild rice. An updated inventory of wild rice stands in Minnesota would help provide this information.

19 S-21

Further regulation of wild rice occurs through the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). The MDA has approval authority over the permit-regulated release of genetically modified organisms (GMO), which would include genetically engineered wild rice, under MS Chapter 18. MS Chapter 18 also provides for the issuance of export certificates for the international sale of wild rice. In addition, the MDA inspects and certifies that wild rice seed is free of weed contamination and meets germination standards, and that the labeling of packaged wild rice is truthful and accurate (MS Chapter 21).

The 2006 Minnesota Legislature provided the state Environmental Quality Board (EQB) additional authority over issues related to natural wild rice. The EQB is now required to notify interested parties if a permit to release genetically engineered wild rice is issued anywhere in the United States (MS 116C.92, Subd. 2). The 2006 legislation also requires that EQB adopt rules requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any proposed release and a permit for an actual release of genetically engineered wild rice (MS 116C.94 Subd.1b).

While two other State statutes further signify the importance of natural wild rice in Minnesota, they do not provide additional protection for the resource. One statute, adopted in 1977, recognizes wild rice as the State Grain of Minnesota (MS 1.148). This law needs to be amended, however, to accommodate revised scientific nomenclature.

Another important State statute is the labeling law for packaged wild rice (MS 30.49). This was adopted in 1989 following a joint effort between tribal governments and the Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council. Consumers of wild rice benefit from this law in that it distinguishes among natural lake or river wild rice that is hand-harvested, wild rice that is machine-harvested, and wild rice that is cultivated. This legislation further distinguishes between wild rice that is grown in Minnesota and that which is grown outside of the state.

20 S-21

Threats to Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota

Despite its rich history and abundance in Minnesota, natural wild rice faces many current and potential threats in this region. In general, any factor that can affect water quality, seasonal water levels, lakebed conditions, regional climate, aquatic vegetation, or wild rice’s natural genetic makeup could potentially threaten stands of natural wild rice. These threats may work in concert or individually to damage wild rice stands. The order in which the threats are presented in this report is not intended to portray or imply the significance of the threat. Instead these threats are divided into stand level or statewide level categories.

Stand-Level Threats

Hydrologic Changes

Wild rice is by its very nature a shallow water plant and sensitive to changes in water levels. The status of natural wild rice in Minnesota was particularly threatened in the late 1800s and 1900s by installations of dams to increase water levels for navigation, logging, flood control and power production. Although wild rice may persist at depths greater than three feet, these plants typically have poor or no seed production. Over time the plants will decline in numbers and density (Engel 1994). Although some aquatic plants will readily migrate to newly created shallow waters, wild rice apparently does so much less frequently. This may be due to limitations on its rate of seed dispersal.

Even when the normal runout elevation of a lake remains steady, heavy precipitation can cause an abrupt though temporary change in water level that can uproot aquatic plants. Natural wild rice is particularly susceptible to uprooting during its floating-leaf stage, which occurs in early summer. At this stage, any rapid increase in water level can cause damage to natural stands. Changes in lake outlets that reduce flow capacity can also significantly impact wild rice by increasing the frequency and severity of these temporary flood events. For example, permanent dams, beaver dams, culverts, and debris such as mats of vegetation can reduce outlet flow capacity and impact wild rice habitat (Ustipak 1983).

These factors can work in concert to produce cumulative effects. For example, culverts can attract beaver because the culvert is a much more restricted area than the creek or riverbed which channels through it. The roadbed often associated with culverts acts as a ready made dike that further contributes to the ease of blockage. As another example, dams and other outlets can be plugged by vegetation such as floating bogs that break loose in high winds. The effect of the dam in reducing outflows is compounded by the blockage raising water levels and increasing the probability of additional bog breaking off.

Changes in upstream watersheds can also reduce the productivity of natural wild rice stands. Drainage ditches and tiles, pumps, and channelization can increase the quantity and speed of waters moving downstream. The resulting peaks in water levels can produce the same effects as reduced outlet capacity by creating abrupt “bounces” or rapid increases in water depth. Increased sedimentation caused by drainage and channelization can also bury seeds and reduce germination.

21 S-21

Increased sedimentation can also increase the height of runout elevations and reduce outlet capacity. These changes can cause long-term damage to natural wild rice stands. The situation is acerbated by the installation of artificial dams. Removing the natural flushing action at outlets causes sediment to accumulate more readily (R. Ustipak, personal communication).

Dams that maintain stable water levels can have long-term deleterious effects on natural wild rice, as well. Water levels that are held stable year after year can create conditions that favor perennial vegetation and shoreline encroachments that impair wild rice habitat.

Recreational Water Use and Shoreland Development

Natural wild rice represents different things to different people. While some consider this native aquatic grass to be a nuisance, others value it greatly as a spiritual entity or as prime habitat for fish and wildlife.

Minnesota is a national leader in numbers of recreational boaters and anglers, with approximately 862,937 registrations for recreational watercraft. Although wild rice provides habitat for spawning fish and their offspring, stands of wild rice can be very frustrating for anglers to fish. Recreational boaters often consider wild rice to be a nuisance because it can be difficult to motor through. The strong stems of erect plants are easily tangled in propellers and may require removal by hand, often by forcibly cutting the tightly wrapped stems.

As a result, wild rice plants are often removed by boaters near docks, in navigational channels, and in other high-use areas. Removal can be direct or incidental due to cutting by propellers or dislodging by excessive wave action (Asplund 2000, Tynan 2000).

As the human population increases, so will the number of boaters. Predictions of demographic changes in Minnesota Figure 2. Greatest predicted population growth will suggest that the areas of greatest occur within the primary range of wild rice in Minnesota. population increases over the next 20

22 S-21

years will include those counties that currently have the highest occurrence of natural wild rice (Figure 2, Minnesota Department of Administration 2007).

The damming of lakes to enhance recreational water use often corresponds with the increased development of shorelands. Shoreland development has increased dramatically in Minnesota, especially in those counties that include the greatest amount of habitat for natural wild rice. This development is often associated with installations of docks, removal of aquatic vegetation, and increases in nutrient-rich runoff.

Seasonal housing across the lake country of the upper Midwest jumped 500% during the past twenty years (United States Forest Service 2007). As lands bordering deeper lakes become more fully developed, prospective lakeshore buyers are increasingly considering lakes that are shallower, often well-vegetated, and more likely to support wild rice habitat.

The changing pattern of forestland ownership in Minnesota is adding to development pressure. Internationally-owned timber corporations are increasingly divesting of their land holdings as part of their fiscal management strategy. These lands have previously been managed somewhat as public lands and have been protected from development. However, as market values increase for shorelands and riparian areas, corporate stockholders are increasingly interested in selling these parcels. About seven million acres of forestland in Minnesota is privately owned, and predictions are that about one million of these acres may be sold for development (Myers 2006).

Such development often accompanies major changes in shorelines and near-shore vegetation (Radomski and Goeman 2001). Natural wild rice is often viewed only as a nuisance to boaters and other lakeshore users. Few shoreland owners consider the cumulative impacts of docks, vegetation removal, dredging, and runoff.

Although known violations of MNDNR Aquatic Plant Management permits do not always indicate which vegetative species were removed, wild rice is a common target where it occurs. A recent permit violation included the removal of 600 feet of natural wild rice from the shoreline of Upper Whitefish Lake in Crow Wing County. The violator was a new landowner who explained that the plants were an “eyesore”.

Wildlife Activity

Natural stands of wild rice provide excellent habitat for wildlife such as waterfowl and aquatic furbearers. The activities of these animals generally have minimal impact on wild rice stands. Although animals use plant stems for building overwater bird nests and muskrat houses, this activity usually affects only small areas. Moreover, wildlife activity often enhances overall aquatic habitat by creating stand diversity.

An exception to this is when beaver use wild rice stems and other vegetation to plug outlets. The resulting dam increases overall water levels and the probability of damage to natural stands by uprooting wild rice plants.

23 S-21

Birds generally have little impact on natural wild rice. For example, blackbirds, waterfowl and other birds can consume most of the ripening wild rice grain yet still leave more than 200 seeds per square foot (Haramis and Kearns 2004). Canada geese, though, can seriously damage stands of wild rice by grazing on emerging stems. For example, researchers monitored tidal marshes along the Patuxent River in Maryland and documented the loss of existing stands of wild rice due to season-long grazing by the geese (Haramis and Kearns 2004).

Although currently not common in Minnesota, some damage to rice stands has been attributed to Canada geese. High concentrations of geese on small lakes or impoundments have eliminated wild rice crops in some years through overgrazing of the emerging stems (R. Naplin and D. Rhode, personal communication). However, ongoing management of resident populations of Canada geese in Minnesota can limit this type of depredation through increased harvest levels . By contrast, shoreline development that converts communities of native vegetation to managed lawns can result in locally concentrated populations of geese that then may overgraze adjacent wild rice stands.

The effect of trumpeter swans on natural stands of wild rice is less clear. Populations of these native birds are slowly recovering after extirpation in the 1800s from most of their range. Anecdotal reports suggest that swans can damage natural stands of wild rice in particular areas (P. David and R. Naplin, personal communication). Nevertheless, low numbers of trumpeter swans combined with a preference for submergent vegetation suggest that these birds pose a minimal threat to natural wild rice (LaMontagne 2000, Norrgard 2006).

Some non-native species of wildlife do threaten stands of wild rice. These will be discussed below (Non-native Invasive Species section).

Plant Competition

Natural wild rice must compete for space, light, and nutrients with other aquatic plants, particularly perennial species (Rogosin 1951). Competitive species include submerged pondweeds (primarily Potamogeton L. spp.), floating leaved plants such as waterlilies (Nuphar J.E. Smith and Nymphaea L. spp.), and emergents such as cattail (Typha L. spp.) and pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata L.). Seasonal water levels play an important role in this competition (Meeker 2000). Natural wild rice may be favored at depths of one to two feet.

Pickerelweed may be an exception in at least three locations in Minnesota where ongoing management to benefit wild rice also found pickerelweed increasing significantly (N. Hansel- Welch, personal communication). Promising management responses have included lowering water levels in winter to freeze and desiccate pickerelweed roots, and cutting competitive species during spring and summer using airboats (McDowell, 2006) or harvesting machines (T. Howes, personal communication). However, maintaining stable water levels over many years may favor other species (D. Vogt, personal communication). Perennial species such as pickerelweed can establish footholds and thus gain the advantage in lakes that are maintained at constant levels. .

The seeds of natural wild rice can remain dormant for years until conditions are more favorable for germination. This trait allows rice to maintain long-term viability through years of low

24 S-21

productivity. Natural wild rice is well-adapted to annual fluctuations in water levels, while other species may be less suited to such changes.

Strong competition among native aquatic plants appears to be localized and specific to individual stands. It does not appear to be a significant factor limiting the distribution or abundance of natural wild rice in Minnesota (Meeker 2000, Norrgard 2006).

Mining and Other Industrial Activity

Mining and industrial activities can potentially adversely affect stands of natural wild rice. For example, this can occur when hydrology is altered in watersheds that support natural wild rice. Alterations can result from the pumping and dewatering of sites. This increases downstream flows (discussed earlier in Hydrologic Changes section) and subsequent depressions in groundwater in surrounding areas. The potential effects of groundwater depression are not well understood. Water levels in basins with higher gradients could be sufficiently lowered to cause shallow areas inhabited by wild rice to dry out.

Other adverse effects can result from the release of chemicals such as sulfate from mine pits and tailings. These chemicals can negatively affect wild rice as well as other plant and animal species in the area. Seepages from tailings can exceed the state established water quality criteria of 10 mg/L for wild rice waters. For example, sulfate has been measured at 1,000 mg/L in these seepages (Udd 2007). State agencies are working with mining companies to decrease sulfate concentrations in discharge waters. Tribal governments express strong concern over the cumulative impacts of the many historic, currently operational, and planned mines in northeastern Minnesota.

Statewide Threats

Loss of Natural Genetic Characteristics

The cultural, ecological, and economic value of natural wild rice distinguishes it as a unique natural resource in Minnesota. There is strong agreement among stakeholders that it is critically important to maintain the natural genetic diversity of natural stands of wild rice (Porter et al. 2000, LaDuke and Carlson 2003). This importance reflects an understanding of spiritual and cultural values, biological and ecological principles, and agricultural and economic realities.

Natural population diversity provides wild rice the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions such as annual variations in temperature and precipitation. Maintaining natural genetic diversity provides the best chance for any species to survive variations related to global warming, for example (BSU-CRI 2007). Ongoing analyses continue to support the position that managing for high biodiversity will best insure the survival of plant and animal communities that have characterized the Great Lakes region for thousands of years.

The flower structure and timing of maturation of wild rice promotes cross-pollination within and among stands. Wind pollination further insures genetic diversity. Genetic variability allows for the natural selection of traits that perform best under different environmental conditions. Studies

25 S-21

in Wisconsin found sufficient genetic diversity between distinct stands of natural wild rice to identify potentially distinct regional populations. The degree of diversity within the stands also varied widely, with larger and denser stands being most diverse (Lu et al. 2005, Waller et al., 2000). The degree of genetic variability within and among natural stands of wild rice in Minnesota is not known. Thus our ability to recognize changes in the genetics of natural wild rice in this region is limited.

Although some studies of wild rice pollen travel have been conducted (Cregan 2004), more research is needed to understand the potential for genetic transfer among natural and cultivated stands. Drift of wild rice pollen may exceed that of other cultivated crops due to the small size of the pollen and its relatively slow settling rate (P. Bloom, personal communication). In addition, a study in Canada has provided evidence that wild geese, and perhaps ducks, can be important transporters of pollen to lake sediments (McAndrews et al. 2007). This raises the possibility that waterfowl may also serve as transporters of viable pollen.

Another means of introducing new genotypes into local populations is the intentional seeding of wild rice to restore historical sites or to develop new stands. Such plantings have a long history in Minnesota. For example, the demand for seeds of wild rice and other native plants helped to establish businesses such as Wildlife Nurseries, Inc. in 1898, in Oshkosh, Wisconsin (Oelke 2007). However, the risks associated with introducing nonlocal genes into local native gene pools are of increasing concern to many scientists (Maki and Galatowitsch 2004).

Plant breeding programs have developed strains of wild rice suitable for commercial production (Oelke 2007). Consistency in plant morphology, control of shattering, and disease resistance have been important objectives of these programs. Because wild rice pollen is airborne, some have expressed concerns about unplanned cross-pollination between cultivated stands and natural stands. At this point in time, however, traditional wild rice breeding programs are not thought to pose a threat to natural stands since the cultivated varieties reflect the selection of genes from within the naturally occurring gene pool (R. Porter, personal communication).

There have been concerns expressed about the potential impact of transgenic engineering. The dramatic increase in use of this technique to alter food crops has been followed by questions concerning its safety, economic losses, potential impact on the natural environment, regulatory framework and compliance, and the ability to mediate unplanned releases. One of the driving forces behind these concerns is evidence that current gene containment practices cannot achieve absolute protection from unwanted pollination (Thai 2005). The unplanned cross-pollination between cultivated crops such as creeping bentgrass and wild relatives has fueled the concerns of both environmentalists and agricultural producers (Haygood et al. 2003, Weiss 2006).

These concerns are evident in the international guidelines for sustainable forest management developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The state of Minnesota has actively sought certification of its public forestlands under the Regional Forest Stewardship Standards published by the council. These standards specifically prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms within certified forests (Minnesota Forest Resource Council 2004).

26 S-21

While there are no known research programs in any country to produce transgenic varieties of wild rice (R. Phillips, personal communication), DNA of wild rice has been transferred to white rice (Abedinia et al., 2000). The very possibility of transgenic engineering wild rice generates deep cultural, economic, and ecologic concerns. These include issues surrounding Native American rights, food safety and nutritional value, protection of economic markets, patenting of species, and protection of natural resources that already face significant threats (LaDuke and Carlson 2003).

This controversy ultimately relates to differing worldviews and the valuation of risk and consequences. For some stakeholders, there is no level of acceptable risk. For others, the potential benefits of genetically engineered wild rice may be worth the possible consequences of escaped transgenic traits. A thorough analysis of the cultural, economic, and ecological consequences of genetic contamination of natural wild rice in Minnesota is required to assess potential impacts.

Transgenic alterations of some U.S. crops will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Traditional plant breeding will also continue. A better understanding of the natural genetic variability of wild rice in Minnesota would increase our understanding of the potential impacts of these activities. Efforts to restore native wild rice to its historical range should be encouraged. Studies of the natural variability and ecological requirements of natural wild rice in this region would enhance these efforts.

Non-native Invasive Species

Non-native invasive species impact every aspect of natural resource management in Minnesota. Protecting and managing natural stands of wild rice is no exception. The movement of watercraft from one wild rice lake to another creates the potential for transfer of invasive animals and plants.

The common carp (Cyprinus carpio) leads the way in historical presence and impact. Common carp feed primarily on invertebrates in bottom soils. Their feeding action dislodges plants and suspends fine particles into the water column. The increased turbidity, caused both by disturbed sediments and by algae stimulated by the phosphorus released from disturbed sediments, shades out aquatic plants. Turbidity then increases as non-vegetated lake bottoms are disturbed by wind. The reduction in aquatic vegetation also allows for increased boat traffic and wave action that can further dislodge plants such as wild rice (Pillsbury and Bergey 2000).

Natural stands of wild rice are negatively impacted by turbid conditions during early stages of growth and by disturbances to bottom soils and boat traffic in later stages. The common carp is primarily a problem today in southern Minnesota, where the species occurs in high densities. Carp likely contributed to the loss of natural wild rice from its historic range in this region (Norrgard, 2006). If the predicted changes in climate in northern Minnesota result in warmer waters, carp could achieve higher densities in that region and cause significant damage within the core of prime habitat for natural wild rice.

27 S-21

The non-native rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) can directly impact wild rice by cutting stems of the plant. Although the extent of this depredation in Minnesota is not known, significant impacts of native crayfish on cultivated wild rice have been documented (Richards et al. 1995). Native to parts of some states in the Great Lakes region, rusty crayfish have invaded portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ontario, including areas that are important for wild rice. Rusty crayfish frequently displace the native crayfish, reduce the diversity and abundance of aquatic plants and invertebrates, and reduce some fish populations (MNDNR 2007).

Rusty crayfish were first documented in Minnesota in 1967, at Otter Creek in southern Minnesota. Twenty years later, a statewide survey documented their presence in many areas (Helgen 1990). To date, rusty crayfish have been found in 31 lakes and streams in 11 counties. They prefer areas where rocks, logs, or other debris provide cover. Preferred sediment types include clay, silt, sand, gravel, and rock. The soft organic sediments usually favored by wild rice do not seem to be favored by rusty crayfish and may help minimize their impact.

The non-native mute swan (Cygnus olor) can seriously threaten the sustainability of natural wild rice stands (P. Wilson, personal communication). To date, Minnesota has limited the number of these birds to only a few that are held in captivity. With continued efforts to identify free- ranging non-native swans and to respond rapidly with control measures, their impact on natural wild rice in Minnesota could be minimal.

Invasive plants such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.), curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus L.), and Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) occur throughout much of the range of natural wild rice. Although these species may prefer water depths that do not favor wild rice, more research is needed to better understand the potential for competition. It is known that these invasive species can disrupt local aquatic ecosystems and lower habitat quality overall. However, it is also important to monitor the mechanisms of control to insure that these do not have unintended effects on natural wild rice.

Hybrid cattail (Typha x glauca), a cross of native and non-native cattail (Typha latifolia L. and Typha angustifolia L., respectively), competes directly with natural wild rice for shallow-water habitat. These plants aggressively form thick mats of roots that can float as water levels fluctuate. The bog-like mats expand across areas of shallow water and can plug lake outlets when broken off and blown by high winds.

Native sedge bogs often border wild rice lakes in northern regions. These bogs are increasingly being invaded and eventually dominated by hybrid cattails. High infestations of hybrid or non- native cattails near lake outlets can increase rates of sedimentation. This, in turn, can combine with the additional plant material to further decrease outlet capacity (R. Ustipak, personal communication).

A relatively new threat to natural stands of wild rice is the non-native flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L.). Found in similar habitats as native bulrush (Scirpus L. spp.), which it resembles, flowering rush can persist in either emergent or submergent forms. Though its distribution in Minnesota is limited, its range is expanding. Flowering rush spreads primarily through

28 S-21

rootstalks. At a site in Idaho, flowering rush was documented to be out-competing other plants such as willow (Salix L. spp.) and cattail (MNDNR 2007).

Another potential threat to natural wild rice in Minnesota is the non-native form of phragmites, or common reed [Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin.]. While phragmites appears in fossil records for North America as early as 40,000 years ago, the non-native form was likely introduced in the late 1700s in ship ballast from Europe. Common reed has since dominated Atlantic coastal marshes and migrated landward, particularly during the 1900s. To date, the non-native form of common reed has invaded natural areas in 18 states including Wisconsin and other Great Lakes states. Although it is still rare in Minnesota, this exotic has been observed in a few disturbed sites in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and in Duluth harbor (L. Skinner, personal communication).

Although phragmites can spread by seed, the most aggressive growth occurs through rhizomes. Non-native phragmites forms a dense network of roots that can reach several feet in depth. It spreads horizontally by sending out rhizome runners that can grow ten or more feet in a single season if conditions are favorable. Very dense stands are formed, that include live stems as well as standing dead stems from the previous year. The stems of non-native phragmites often reach 15 feet in height along the Atlantic coast.

In a recent study of phragmites in wetlands at Long Point, Lake Erie, researchers found that the occurrence of phragmites increased exponentially in the late 1990s. Of the 31 stands analyzed, 28 (90%) were dominated by the non-native strain (Wilcox et al. 2003). Part of the rapid expansion of the non-native form may be related to its ability to weaken the root structure of adjacent plants through the secretion of gallic acid, which attacks a structural protein (tubulin) in the roots of competing plants (Murray 2007).

Climate Change

The warming of the earth is now evident from measurements and observations. These include increases in average global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global sea levels. The average surface temperature of Earth has risen by about 1.3° F since 1850. The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, projects that the average global surface temperature is likely to further increase by 3 to 7° F by the year 2100. This projection assumes a moderate level of action to reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

According to the IPCC, the lower end of this range (i.e., a further warming of 3° F) represents a threshold for the earth beyond which irreversible and possibly catastrophic changes are likely. If the projections of global warming this century are met, most living things on Earth will likely face severe consequences.

What will predicted changes in climate mean for natural stands of wild rice in Minnesota?

Although climatologists agree that temperatures in this region will increase, predictions of precipitation vary (Figure 3, Kling et al. 2003). Some climate models predict that increasing temperatures will lead to increasing frequency and duration of droughts in the Dakotas and

29 S-21

western Minnesota. Hot, dry conditions can negatively impact the pollination of wild rice and thereby reduce its seed production.

Warmer temperatures will also reduce the severity of winters. The required cold temperature (35q F or less) dormancy of three to four months for wild rice seeds could be reduced, particularly in the southern portions of its range. In addition, warmer conditions often favor non-native species. In particular, warmer waters may increase the survival and spread of carp across Minnesota. Because wild rice lakes, rivers, and wetlands are interconnected, protection of wild rice habitat from carp could become very difficult.

Invasive species such as the non-native phragmites may also benefit from warmer temperatures. Many exotics, such as hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillata (L. f.) Royle] and water hyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Martius) Solms-Laub.] are limited by cold climates (Holm et al. 1977; Langeland 1996). Increased average temperatures may enable Figure 3. Predicted climate change will effectively these extremely invasive non-native species to alter Minnesota to reflect the climate of states to the migrate and gain footholds in Minnesota. south. Species such as these could have severe impacts on wild rice waters.

The frequency of dewpoints above 70q F is already trending upward in Minnesota (Seeley 2007a). Warm, humid conditions support diseases of wild rice such as brown spot (Bipolaris oryzae Luttrel and Bipolaris sorokiniana Luttrell) and other pathogens. For example, high humidity and sustained warm overnight temperatures in early August 2007 promoted the development of brown spot in many natural wild rice stands in Minnesota. Estimated crop losses in some stands were 70 to 90% (R. Ustipak, personal communication).

There is strong agreement that global warming will result in increased severity of individual weather events (Seeley 2006). According to Dr. Mark Seeley, University of Minnesota climatologist, 2007 may be representative of the future conditions in Minnesota. In August 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture declared 24 Minnesota counties to be in severe drought and eligible for federal assistance. Also in August 2007, the Federal Emergency Management Agency declared seven counties in southeastern Minnesota to be flood disasters, also eligible for federal assistance (Seeley 2007b).

30 S-21

In nearly two hundred years of weather history, there are no records of such extremes occurring in the same month of the same year in Minnesota. Increasing severity of storm events will cause more flooding and hence more abrupt changes in lake levels during the growing seasons of wild rice and other aquatic vegetation. Natural wild rice will be particularly susceptible to damage while in the floating-leaf stage.

The southern edge of the range for natural wild rice may already be receding northward. While many factors have likely contributed to a decline in range of natural wild rice, climate may well be involved.

Lack of Recruitment and Retention of Harvesters

As Minnesotans have fewer positive experiences with natural wild rice through harvesting, hunting, trapping, or wildlife watching, they are less likely to recognize or have concerns about its potential loss. They are also less likely to appreciate the severe impacts that the previously noted threats could have on wild rice, and thus on the historic and culturally rich quality of life in Minnesota. This loss of appreciation, while not a direct threat to rice in itself, nevertheless increases the risks for wild rice because the level of resource protection and management is often based on its perceived value.

The protection and management of natural wild rice relies not only on tribes and agencies, but on the users of the resource, as well. Harvesters support management activities through the purchase of annual licenses. Because they have a personal stake in the future of natural wild rice in Minnesota, they are the ones most likely to report activities that are damaging the resource. Harvesters are also great advocates for natural wild rice. They promote its value within the ricing community and to the state as a whole.

31 S-21

5 Year Average License Sales (2000-2004) to Rice Harvesters- Distribution by Age and Gender

70

60

50

40 All Female 30 Male

Avg Licenses Sold 20

10

0

7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 Age

Figure 4. Age distribution of state licensed wild rice harvesters.

Wild rice harvesters are relatively few in numbers, though, and these numbers have declined over the last fifty years. During the 1960s, sales of state licenses in Minnesota averaged over 10,000 per year. Since 2000, these sales have averaged fewer than 1,500 annually. Harvesters under tribal regulations are not required to purchase a state license. Their numbers are estmated to exceed 3000 (R. Norrgard personal communication) and have likely experienced moderate increases in recent years (J. Persell, personal communication).

The MNDNR surveyed wild rice harvesters who purchased licenses from 2004 to 2006 to gather information on harvester characteristics and potential barriers to participation. This survey found that the majority of harvesters were male and at least 40 years old (82% and 81%, respectively). Figure 5 illustrates a similar age distribution from 2000 to 2004. Nearly all of the harvesters who responded had been introduced to wild rice harvesting by a friend or family member (87%).

Although most were satisfied with their harvest experience (82.3%), those surveyed identified several barriers to continuing this tradition. The most important barriers were time, knowing when to harvest, knowing where to harvest, and finding a wild rice processor. Other barriers included finding a ricing partner, physical challenges, financial expenses, finding a buyer, and having proper equipment.

Even for experienced harvesters, the difficulty of finding information on where and when to harvest can limit participation. For those living outside of natural wild rice areas, finding this information can be particularly difficult. For new harvesters, even finding a processor to finish the rice is a significant challenge.

32 S-21

Difficulty in acquiring harvest-related information may influence the distribution of harvesters and harvesting pressure on individual stands. The MNDNR 2006 survey revealed that only 25 lakes accounted for half of all harvesting trips. By contrast, the inventory of wild rice stands compiled for this document indicates that 119 lakes (100+ acres in size) account for more than half of the acreage of natural wild rice in Minnesota.

Addressing the educational or informational needs of Minnesotans interested in natural wild rice has been largely ignored. As with other natural resources in Minnesota, the lack of recruitment and retention of harvesters threatens the sustainability of natural wild rice in the state. Without readily available information and inspiring programs of education, public support of protection and management of the very resources that define Minnesota will likely decline.

33 S-21

Management Challenges

The future of natural wild rice in Minnesota will depend in large part on its protection and management by state and tribal natural resource agencies. The most important management issues relate to those threats identified in the previous section. The challenges that managers of natural wild rice face are further complicated because of limitations to their authority, inherent variability of wild rice production, and the need for additional information concerning wild rice in Minnesota.

Multiple Jurisdictions

Minnesota state statutes provide that ownership of wild rice and other aquatic vegetation is vested in the state (MS 84.091). State statutes also establish regulatory control over wild rice removal and harvest (MS 84.10, 84.15, 84.027, 84.28). Exceptions to state harvest regulations apply in geographic locations that are described by treaties and subsequent agreements, statutes, and rules (MS 84.10, MR 6284.0600 and 6284.0700). State and tribal enforcement officers often operate under temporary agreements until formal agreements are finalized.

The enforcement of harvest regulations in Minnesota is mainly stable and without major controversy. One issue still being discussed, however, is the posting of lakes as “closed” to wild rice harvest until it is determined that the grain is ripe. Both state and tribal governments have done this in the past on lakes that are popular with harvesters. In 1996, a new state law was passed that opened the ricing season on July 15 each year and made it illegal to pick rice that is not ripe (MS 84.105). Because wild rice usually ripens in Minnesota between the third week of August and the second week of September, the new law was intended to encourage a “pick when ripe” philosophy.

Most tribal governments have continued to post popular wild rice lakes within their jurisdictions. For many tribes, this practice is part of a long-standing tradition that relies on counsel provided by tribal committees. Tribes have urged the state to work cooperatively to post additional lakes. The position of the state, however, is that posting is unnecessary for the long-term health of the wild rice resource and the MNDNR currently has statutory authority only to post lakes as “closed” to “protect against undue depletion of the crop so as to retard reseeding or restocking of such area or so as to endanger its effective use as a natural food for waterfowl” (MS 84.15). In some cases, productive wild rice lakes are within both tribal and state jurisdictions. For these lakes, the differences in management philosophy have created conflicts between tribal and state agencies and with some harvesters.

Jurisdictional issues also arise over management of lake resources in general. Although the state of Minnesota has the responsibility of ownership of natural wild rice, the state includes many agencies, and each has its own mission and interest groups. No single agency or governmental entity in Minnesota assumes all of the responsibility for protecting natural wild rice. In public waters, the MNDNR takes the lead to regulate harvest and damage or removal of wild rice plants. Counties take the lead, within state statutory guidelines, to regulate shoreline development and most local recreational surface-water use. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulates discharges to waters throughout the state; the Minnesota Department of

34 S-21

Agriculture assumes the lead for issues involving cultivated wild rice; and the state Environmental Quality Board has the lead responsibility to coordinate, notify, and evaluate any potential release of genetically engineered wild rice.

Within the MNDNR, the Division of Waters assumes the lead on shoreline regulations; the Division of Ecological Resources leads on aquatic plant management and invasive species; and the Division of Fish and Wildlife leads on habitat management for fisheries and wildlife values. The MNDNR Division of Enforcement is responsible for enforcement of natural resource regulations including the harvest of natural wild rice except when tribal regulations apply.

A formal, interdisciplinary planning process for Minnesota lakes does not exist. Lake management plans typically reflect the specific goals of the sponsoring entity. The plans often focus on aspects of either fisheries, wildlife, water quality, or vegetation without considering a comprehensive approach that addresses all of these components of a lake ecosystem.

Within Minnesota state statutes, there is no unifying policy of wild rice management that provides integration of these various agencies. By contrast, a unifying policy is clear regarding wetlands. Under public water laws, state statutes declare that it is in the public interest to increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands (MS 103A.201 subd. 2). A similar policy statement would help insure the sustainability of the natural wild rice resource in Minnesota.

Annual Crop Variability

Management by MNDNR and its conservation partners to maintain water levels beneficial to natural wild rice stands has never been greater. Water level monitoring, beaver control, debris removal, and invasive species management has annually taken place on more than 200 lakes and impoundments with significant wild rice stands. This management is based on the combined efforts of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, Tribal governments, and at least three lake associations. Much of the funding for these management efforts comes from the revenue generated by wild rice license sales.

Nevertheless, the expectations of those who value natural wild rice often exceed the capabilities of those responsible for protecting and managing this resource in Minnesota. A particularly difficult challenge for managers is the critical role that weather plays in wild rice development. Even when growing conditions have been exceptionally favorable, a single storm can reduce or even devastate the local harvest. At best, wild rice managers can “set the table” by maintaining free-flowing outlets or by setting appropriate runout elevations on water control structures. These management actions improve the harvest potential in good years and lessen the impact of poor conditions in less favorable years.

It can be easy for both user groups and managers to overlook the reality that natural wild rice has adapted to changing weather patterns through strategies that promote long-term survival rather than consistent annual abundance. The boom and bust cycle of natural wild rice has been recognized for centuries. This variation in annual productivity may be driven as much by seed dormancy and nutrient cycling as it is by variable weather. Resource managers, wild rice

35 S-21

harvesters, and other stakeholders must remember that productivity of natural wild rice is highly variable, both by stand and by year. Responsible management of this unique resource should strive to maximize its long-term sustainability in the Great Lakes region.

Information Needs

To effectively manage natural wild rice for future generations, resource managers need a better understanding of its natural ecology; its historical losses and patterns of abundance and distribution; threats to its sustainability; and the needs of harvesters.

While much has been learned about the ecology of wild rice over the last several decades, adequate information is still lacking on environmental tolerances and limiting factors such as water and sediment chemistry, seasonal water levels, and disturbance. This information will help create a better understanding of the historical reductions in wild rice distribution and provide much needed guidance for restoration of wild rice habitat.

In addition, a better understanding of ecological relationships in wild rice waters could guide strategies to counter threats such as mining and climate change. Improved ecological understanding would also provide much needed insight into the issues of invasive species. Of particular concern is the potential spread of carp, flowering rush, and exotic phragmites. Better assessments of the damage caused by rusty crayfish are needed as well.

Another concern is that basic information concerning the natural genetic makeup of native stands of wild rice is lacking. An understanding of the natural genetic variability of natural wild rice in the Great Lakes region and genetic drift between stands is critical. This information is needed to guide restoration efforts, particularly in the face of changing climate, and to help detect changes in diversity. We also need to better understand reproduction and its role in population genetics of natural wild rice.

More thorough information is needed on the distribution and overall acreage of natural wild rice in Minnesota. For this study, the MNDNR and the Wild Rice Study Technical Team revised and updated an earlier database of this information (Appendix B). While the recent revision is the most complete and detailed information of its kind for Minnesota, it still represents a gross estimate because information for many lakes, wetlands, rivers, and streams is incomplete or totally lacking. Further refinements and updates to this database are needed. In addition, refined methods are needed to improve the monitoring of annual productivity and the effects of management actions. This information would also help identify new opportunities for harvesters and better distribute harvesting pressure. With improved methods of monitoring and more complete databases, the overall health of the wild rice resource will be better managed.

Managers also need to better understand the harvesters of natural wild rice. What are annual trends? How can agencies and the wild rice community encourage retention of existing harvesters and recruit new people to continue this tradition? Who are the potential harvesters and what do they need in terms of ricing information, education, and support to be successful? The future of the wild rice resource in Minnesota may very well depend on the level of interest in its harvest and traditions.

36 S-21

Department of Natural Resources Recommendations

Introduction

This section is in response to the legislative request to include recommendations “on protecting and increasing natural wild rice stands in the state”. The following recommendations were developed with valuable input and discussion from the members of the Wild Rice Study Technical Team and Partnership Team. However, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources assumes sole responsibility for these recommendations as written and presented here.

MNDNR recognizes the importance of protecting natural wild rice beds from genetic modification and agrees with wild rice stakeholders that this protection is critical to the future of this resource. We strongly support the Environmental Quality Board in adopting rules that require an environmental impact statement for a proposed release of genetically engineered wild rice (MS 116C.94 Subd.1b).

Recommendation 1

Recodify current wild rice harvest statutes and rules to remove duplication and inconsistencies. Rationale: The state’s wild rice statutes and rules have been developed and modified piecemeal over a long period of time. As a result they contain a number of inconsistencies and duplication. Most of these changes relate to the harvest regulations (MS 84.27 – 84.91) although statutory recognition of wild rice as the state grain (MS 1.148) is also out of date in its nomenclature.

Recommendation 2

Establish statutory policy guidance on wild rice and its management. Rationale: Within state statutes there is no unifying policy that provides direction to agencies responsible for some aspect of wild rice management. In contrast, the policy of the state is clear when it comes to wetlands. State statutes declare that it is in the public interest to increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands (MS 103A.201 subd. 2). A similar policy statement concerning natural wild rice would be useful guidance for state and local agencies. Suggested language includes “The legislature finds that natural wild rice in Minnesota provides public value by its contributions to fish and wildlife habitat, ecological diversity, environmental quality, recreational opportunities, cultural traditions, human sustenance, and economic well- being, and that it is in the public interest to protect existing natural wild rice stands, including their inherent genetic diversity, and restore wild rice to its historic range and abundance for its ecological, economic, and cultural values.”

37 S-21

Recommendation 3

The DNR will convene an interagency workgroup in 2008 to identify desired statutory updates in harvest regulations. Rationale: Harvest regulations and license fee structure should be reviewed by an interagency work group for suggested changes that would work towards resolution of posting lakes closed to harvest and regulating reservation border lakes, as well as encouraging recruitment and retention of wild rice harvesters. Possible changes include broadening the use of funds deposited in the wild rice account to allow for information and education, removal of the season framework, adding a combination (spouse) license, extending special one-day license, providing special one-day mentored license for resident and nonresident participants in formal education programs, and establishing a special youth day when mentors are not required to have a license.

Recommendation 4

The DNR will designate and publish a list of important natural wild rice areas. Rationale: Recognizing important wild rice areas and publishing the list would call attention to the importance of these areas, indicate management priorities, and provide a formal list that may prove useful for local units of government that are considering zoning and surface use restrictions.

Recommendation 5

The DNR will convene a standing interagency wild rice workgroup to share information and develop recommendations for inventory methodology and trend assessments, education and information outreach, lake planning and management, harvester recruitment and retention, and other management issues as they arise. Rationale: Comprehensive protection and management of wild rice involves multiple agencies. Management needs include better inventory information including consistent methodology for trend analysis, documenting natural genetic diversity, and establishing long-term case studies on identified lakes. This information will encourage sound restoration strategies and help foster the development of interdisciplinary lake management plans. In addition, the workgroup should focus on developing outreach information for harvesters, shoreline owners, realtors, boaters, and outdoor educators.

Recommendation 6

Increase intensive natural wild rice lake management efforts and accelerate the restoration of wild rice stands within its historic range. Rationale: Protecting and managing natural wild rice resources on many lakes requires active annual management activities to maintain free flowing outlets. The MNDNR works cooperatively with other agencies and nonprofit organizations such as Ducks Unlimited to accomplish this management. Tribal agencies also conduct independent management efforts on specific lakes. In recent years these efforts have improved wild

38 S-21

rice habitat on approximately 200 lakes and impoundments annually. Additional funding could expand accomplishments beyond current efforts.

The MNDNR has also been involved to a lesser extent in restoring wild rice to wildlife habitat areas within the historic range of natural wild rice. These efforts should be accelerated as funding, time, and opportunity permit.

39 S-21

Literature Cited Abedinia, M., R. J. Henry, A. B. Blakeney, and L. G. Lewin. 2000. Accessing genes in the tertiary gene pool of rice by direct introduction of total DNA from Zizania palustris (Wild Rice). Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 18:133-138.

Ackley, F. 2000. Manoomin – A gift from the creator. Pages 8-10 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA

Aiken, S. G., P. F. Lee, D. Punter, and J. M. Stewart. 1988. Wild rice in Canada. Agriculture Canada Publication 1830, NC Press Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Archibold, O. W., A. G. Good, and J. M. Sutherlund. 1989. Annual variation in wild rice growth. Canadian Journal Plant Science 69:653-655.

Asplund, T. R. 2000. The effects of motorized watercraft on aquatic ecosystems. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and University of Wisconsin, Publication PUBL-SS- 948-00, Madison, USA.

Atkins, T. 1986. The life history and ecology of wild rice. In Wild Rice, The Natural Crop Conference, 13-15 May 1986, Lakehead University, Minaki, Ontario, Canada.

Benton-Banai, E. 1988. The Mishomis book: the voice of the Ojibwe. Indian Country Communications, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Carson, T. L. 2002. The effects of sediment nutrient variation, water depth, and emergent aquatic perennials on wild rice (Zizania palustris) production at the Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Cregan, J. 2004. Aspects of seed storage, pollen travel and population dynamics of wild rice (Zizania palustris). Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Durkee W. R., J. Pastor, and B. W. Dewey. 2006. Effects of wild rice (Zizania palustris) straw on biomass and seed production in northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Botany 84:1019-1024.

Durkee W. R. 2008. Thesis pending. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. Engel, S., and S. A. Nichols. 1994. Aquatic macrophyte growth in a turbid windswept lake. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9(2): 97-109.

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors. 1993+. Flora of North America north of Mexico. 12+ volumes. New York, USA and Oxford, UK.

Forest Stewardship Council. 2004. Regional Forest Stewardship Standard for the Lake States – Central Hardwoods Region.

40 S-21

Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, second edition. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, USA.

Grava, J., and K. A. Raisanen. 1978. Growth and nutrient accumulation and distribution in wild rice. Agronomy Journal 70:1077-1081.

Haramis, G. M., and G. D. Kearns. 2004. Invasive Herbivory: resident Canada geese and the decline of wild rice along the tidal Patuxent River. Pages 37-38 in M. C. Perry, editor. Proceedings of a Symposium: Mute Swans and Their Chesapeake Bay Habitats. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2004–0005.

Haygood, R., A. R. Ives, and D. A. Andow. 2003. Consequences of recurrent gene flow from crops to wild relatives. Proceedings of The Royal Society London B 270:1879-1886.

Helgen, J. C. 1990. The distribution of crayfish in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries Investigational Report Number 405.

Henderson, C. 1980. A Preliminary Atlas of Breeding Birds in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota

Holm, L.G., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The world’s worst weeds: distribution and biology. University Press, Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.

Huseby, J. T. 1997. Use of cultivated wild rice paddies and associated habitats by migrating and breeding waterfowl in northwest Minnesota. Dissertation, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA.

Jenks, A. E. 1900. The wild rice gatherers of the Upper Lakes: a study in American primitive economics. Pages 1013-1137 in Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897-1898. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA.

Kling, G., L. Johnson and S. Polasky. 2003. Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region. Impacts on Minnesota Communities. Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological Society of America. http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glchallengereport.html

LaDuke, W., and B. Carlson. 2003. Our manoomin, our life: The Anishinaabeg struggle to protect wild rice. White Earth Land Recovery Project, Ponsford, Minnesota.

LaMontagne, J. 2000. Use of migratory stopover areas by trumpeter swans in southern Alberta. Thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Langeland, K.A. 1996. Hydrilla verticiallata: “The perfect aquatic weed.” Castanea 61:293- 304.

41 S-21

Lee, P. F. 1986. Ecological relationships of wild rice, Zizania aquatica. 4. Environmental regions within a wild rice lake. Canadian Journal Botany 64:2037-2044.

Lee, P. F. 2000. Research and the conservation of wild rice. Pages 11-14 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Lee, P. F., and J. M. Stewart. 1983. Ecological relationships of wild rice, Zizania aquatica. 2. Sediment plant tissue concentrations. Canadian Journal of Botany 61:1775-1784.

Lu, Y., D. Waller, and P. David. 2005. Genetic variability is correlated with population size and reproduction in American wild rice (Zisania palustis. Var. paustris, Poaceae) populations. American Journal of Botany 92:990-997.

Maki, K., and S. Galatowitsch. 2004. Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade. Biological Conservation 118(3):389-396.

Martin, A. C., and F. M. Uhler. 1939. Foods of game ducks in the United States and Canada. U. S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 634. Wash., D.C.

Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and plants. Dover Publications. New York, New York.

McAndrews, J. H.and C. L. Turton. 2007. Canada geese dispersed cultigen pollen grains from prehistoric Iroquoian fields to Crawford Lake, Ontario, Canada. Palynology 31: 9-18.

McAtee, W. L. 1917. Propagation of wild duck foods. U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 465. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McDowell, M. 2006. Adaptive management of wild rice and pickerelweed at Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Manoomin Niikaanisag Wild Rice Coalition Building and Conference, 8-11 August 2006, Watersmeet, Michigan, USA.

Meeker, J. 2000. The ecology of “Wild” wild rice (Zizania palustris var. palustris) in the Kakagon Sloughs, a riverine wetland on Lake Superior. Pages 68-83 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Minnesota Department of Administration, State Demographic Center. 2007. Extrapolated population for Minnesota cities and townships outside the Twin Cities region, 2006 – 2035. http://www.demography.state.mn.us Accessed 25 Oct 2007.

42 S-21

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Tomorrow’s habitat for the wild and rare: an action plan for Minnesota wildlife, comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecological Services, St. Paul, USA.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Invasive species website. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/index.html, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Mississippi Flyway Council. 2005. Meeting Minutes, July 23-24, Robinsonville, MS.

Moyle, J. B. 1939. The larger aquatic plants of Minnesota and the factors determining their distribution. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Moyle, J. B. 1944a. Some chemical factors influencing the distribution of aquatic plants in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 34:402-420.

Moyle, J. B. 1944b. Wild Rice in Minnesota. The Journal of Wildlife Management 8(3):177-184.

Moyle, J. B. and P. Kueger.1964. Wild Rice in Minnesota. The Conservation Volunteer. Nov. – Dec. pp. 30-37.

Murray, M. 2007. Killer reed’s lethal weapon discovered. The News Journal. 18 October 2007. www.delawareonline.com.

Myers, J. 2006. Breaking up the forest. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. January-February, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb06/breaking_up.html.

Norrgard, R. 2006. An overview of threats to the future of wild rice conservation and management. Manoomin Niikaanisag Wild Rice Coalition Building and Conference, 8- 11 August 2006, Watersmeet, Michigan, USA.

Oelke, E. A. 2007. Saga of the grain: a tribute to Minnesota cultivated wild rice growers. Hobar Publications. Lakeville, MN.

Oelke, E. A., P. R. Bloom, R. A. Porter, and Q. Liu. 2000. Wild rice plant development and seed physiology. Pages 54-67 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Oelke, E. A., W. A. Elliot, M. F. Kern Camp, and D. N. Noetzel. 1973. Commercial production of wild rice. University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service, Extension Folder 284. St. Paul, USA.

Ownby, G. B., and T. Morley. 1991. Vascular plants of Minnesota: a checklist and atlas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.

43 S-21

Pastor, J., and R. W. Durkee Walker. 2006. Delays in nutrient cycling and plant population oscillations. Oikos 112(3):698-705.

Peden, D. G. 1982. Factors associated with growth of wild rice in northern Saskatchewan. Arctic 35(2):307-311.

Persell, J., and M. Swan. 1986. Wild rice ecosystems, a general description. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Water Research Lab, Cass Lake, USA.

Pillsbury, R. W., and E. A. Bergey. 2000. The effects of root mass and disturbance on wild rice (Palustris aquatica) survivorship. Pages 206-214 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Porter, R. A., R. L. Phillips, R. F. Nyvall, and E. A. Oelke. 2000. A genetic overview of wild rice from three decades of breeding. Pages 109-121 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Radomski, P., and T. J. Goeman. 2001. Consequences of human lakeshore development on emergent and floating-leaf vegetation abundance. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:46-61.

Richards, C., J. Gunderson, P. Tucker, and M. McDonald. 1995. Crayfish and baitfish culture in wild rice paddies. Natural Resources Research Institute, Technical Report NRRI/TR- 95/39, University of Minnesota, Duluth, USA.

Rogosin, A. 1951. An ecological history of wild rice. Minnesota Commission on Wild Rice. Minnesota Department of Conservation, St. Paul, USA.

Rossman, G., A. Rossman, and R. Rossman. 1982. Recollections of 50 years: duck hunting in northern Minnesota. Northprint Company, Grand Rapids, Minnesota, USA.

Schlender, J. H. 2000. Forward. Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Seeley, M. 2006. Minnesota weather almanac. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul, USA.

Seeley, M. 2007. Climate change implications for Minnesota’s tourism and recreation. Sustainable Tourism Conference presentation, 25 April, 2007, Chanhassen, USA.

Stoddard, C. H. 1957. Utilization of waste swamplands for wild rice production. Land Economics 33(1):77-80.

44 S-21

Stoudt, J. M. 1944. The food preferences of mallards in the Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 8:110-112.

Tester, J. R. 1995. Minnesota’s natural heritage. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.

Thai, W. 2005. Transgenic crops: the good, the bad, and the laws. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 6(2):873-891.

Tynan, T. 2000. Testing the effects of motorboats on wild rice (Zizania palustris var. interior). Pages 192-205 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Udd, Jeff. 2007. Correspondence from Jeff Udd, MN Pollution Control Agency, to Anne Jagunich, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Lands and Minerals Division, Hibbing, Minnesota, USA

U. S. Forest Service. North Central Research Station - The changing Midwest assessment: percent change in density of seasonal housing units, 1980-2000. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4153/deltawest/humandemo/seasonal001.asp. Accessed 22 Oct 2007.

Ustipak, R. 1983. Wild rice initiative. Minnesota Waterfowl Assn. News, Jan/Feb, Page 7.

Valppu, S. H. 2000. Paleoethnobotanical investigations at the Big Rice Site: Laurel culture use of wild rice (Zizania aquatica L.) and associated radiocarbon dates. Pages 27-39 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Vennum, T. Jr. 1988. Wild rice and the Ojibway people. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul, USA.

Walker, R.D., Pastor, J., Dewey, B.W. (2006) Effects of wild rice (Zizania palustris L.) straw on biomass and seed production in northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Botany, 84 (6): 1019-1024.

Waller, D. M., Y. Lu, and P. David. 2000. Genetic variation among populations of wild rice (Zizania palustris). Pages 122-135 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Weiss, R. 2006. Gene-altered profit-killer: a slight taint of biotech rice puts farmers’ overseas sales in peril. Washington Post. 21 September 2006.

45 S-21

Wilcox, K. L., S. A. Petrie, L. A. Maynard, and S. W. Meyer. 2003. Historical distribution and abundance of Phragmites australis at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29(4): 664-680

46 S-21

Personal Communication Cited

Bloom, P. R. 2007. Personal Communication. Department of Soil, Water and Climate. University of Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

David, P. 2007. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Odanah, Wisconsin,USA. USA

Drewes, A. 2007. Personal communication. University of Wisconsin, Institute for Environmental Studies, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Gorham, R. 2007. Personal communication. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Management Section, Area Wildlife Supervisor, Bemidji, Minnesota, USA

Hansel-Welch, N. 2007. Personal communication. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Management Section, Shallow Lakes Program Supervisor, Brainerd, Minnesota, USA

Howes, t. 2007. Personal communication. Fond du Lac Reservation, Department of Resource Management, Natural Resources Manager, Cloquet, Minnesota, USA

LaDuke, W. 2007. Personal communication. White Earth Land Recovery Project, Callaway, Minnesota, USA

McDowell, M. 2007. Personal communication. Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, McGregor, Minnesota, USA.

Naplin, R. 2005. Personal communication. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Management Section, Area Wildlife Supervisor, Park Rapids, Minnesota, USA

Norrgard, R. 2007. Personal communication. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Management Section, Wetland Wildlife Program, St. Paul, Minnesota. USA

Persell, J. 2007. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Division of Resource Management, Cass Lake, Minnesota, USA.

Phillips, R. L. 2007. Personal communication. University of Minnesota, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, Regents' Professor, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Porter, R. A. 2007. Personal Communication. North Central Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota. Grand Rapids, Minnesota, USA

Rhode, D. 2007. Personal communication. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Management Section, Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area, Area Wildlife Supervisor, Anoka, USA.

47 S-21

Robinson, R. 2007. Personal communication. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Division of Resource Management, Director, Cass Lake, Minnesota, USA.

Skinner, L. 2007. Personal Communication. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecological resources, Invasive Species Unit Supervisor, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Ustipak, R. 2007. Personal communication. Private Consultant, Brainerd, Minnesota, USA

Vogt, D. 2007. Personal communication. 1854 Treaty Authority, Environmental Management Division, Environmental Biologist, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.

Wilson, P. 2006. Personal communication. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians – Tribal Ogema, Manistee, Michigan, USA.

48 S-21

Appendix A

Natural Wild Rice Study Development Process

Scope: This study provided an information document on natural wild rice developed with conservation partner input, review, and possible endorsement. The document included the current location and estimated acreage and area of natural stands; potential threats to natural stands, including, but not limited to, development pressure, water levels, pollution, invasive species, and genetically engineered strains; and recommendations to the house and senate committees with jurisdiction over natural resources on protecting and increasing natural wild rice stands in the state. Format: The final document was formatted to include an Executive Summary, Introduction, Background, Threats, Management Challenges, Recommendations, and Appendices. Process: A Partnership Team was organized to review, comment, and consider endorsement of the planning process, interim draft of the document, and the final draft to be released for public review. DNR Assistant Commissioner Bob Meier chaired the Partnership Team. Invited members of the Partnership Team included representatives from other agencies and organizations including DNR Tribal Liaison Paul Swenson, the DNR Divisions of Ecological Services, Enforcement and Waters, MN Department of Agriculture, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota legislature (Representatives Frank Moe and Sondra Erickson), U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Natural Resources and Conservation Service, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Tribal representatives, Ducks Unlimited, MN Wild Rice Council, Minnesota Waterfowl Association, Save Our Rice Alliance, Minnesota Waters, and the Association of Minnesota Counties. The Partnership Team was offered the opportunity to submit dissenting reports to be included in the appendices. A Technical Team was organized to propose the document development process, develop the draft document and incorporate revisions as the process proceeded. DNR Wetland Wildlife Program Leader Ray Norrgard chaired the team and assumed the role of lead writer. Invited members of the Technical Team will include DNR wildlife field staff Gary Drotts, Ann Geisen, Shelley Gorham, Beau Liddell, Rob Naplin and Regional Enforcement Supervisor Ken Soring, along with Michelle McDowell (Fish and Wildlife Service), Becky Knowles (Leech Lake Department of Resource Management), Rod Ustipak (Consultant), Jon Schneider (Ducks Unlimited), MN Wild Rice Council (Beth Nelson and Jon Dokter), Rachel Walker (University of Minnesota – St. Paul), Dr. Ron Phillips (University of Minnesota – St. Paul), Dr. Raymie Porter (University of Minnesota- Grand Rapids), Annette Drewes (University of Wisconsin), Thomas Howes (Fond du Lac Reservation), Darren Vogt (1854 Authority), Steve Smith and John Persell (Minnesota Chippewa Tribe), Mike Swan (White Earth Reservation), Andrea Hanks (White Earth Land Recovery Project), and Peter David (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission). Timelines: The process began with the passage of the 2007 legislative request and will end with a completed report to the legislature by February 15, 2008. The Technical Team met on August 14, 2007 to develop the final draft of the proposed document development process, and a draft outline of the final document. The Technical Team communicated by email and followed up with meetings on November 13, 2007 and January 7, 2008. The draft study document underwent 10 revisions in all. The Partnership Team met on September 19 and December 3, 2007 to review

49 S-21

the Technical Team’s proposals. Review of the final working draft of the study document was conducted by mail. The final document will be presented to the legislature by February 15, 2008. Copies of the final document will be posted on the MNDNR website and available upon request through DNR regions and central office.

Partnership Team Roster

Organization Name Title Association of Minnesota Counties Anna Lee Garletz Policy Analyst Bois Forte DNR Cory Strong Commissioner Bureau of Indian Affairs Bob Jackson Clearwater County Tom Anderson County Commissioner DNR Commissioner's Office Bob Meier Asst Commissioner/Policy DNR Division of Ecological Resources Lee Pfannmuller (Donna Perleberg) Director DNR Division of Enforcement Mike, Hamm Director DNR Division of Waters Kent, Lokkesmoe Director DNR Northwest Region Office Paul Swenson Tribal Liaison Ducks Unlimited Ryan Heiniger Director, Cons Programs Fond du Lac Resource Management Reginald Defoe (Tom Howes) Director Grand Portage Tribal Council Norman Deschampe Chairman Leech Lake DRM Rich Robinson Director Mille Lacs Natural Resources Curt Kalk Commissioner Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Gary Frazer Executive Director Minnesota Legislature Sondra Erickson State Representative Minnesota Legislature Frank Moe State Representative Minnesota Waters Bruce Johnson Executive Director Minnesota Wild Rice Council Beth Nelson (Peter Imle, Ken Gunvalson) President MN Board of Water & Soil Resources John Jaschke (Greg Larson) Executive Director Gene, Hugoson (Chuck Dale, Chuck MN Department of Agriculture Dryke, Geir Friisoe) Commissioner MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge Jim Leach (Barb Boyle) Director MN Waterfowl Association Brad Nylin Executive Director Natural Resources Conservation Service Bill Hunt State Conservationist Red Lake DNR Al Pemberton Director Save Our Rice Alliance Richard Draper White Earth DNR Mike Swan (Doug McArthur) Director White Earth Land Recovery Project Winona LaDuke Founding Director

50 S-21

Technical Team Roster

First Name Title Organization Peter David Wildlife Biologist Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Jon Dokter Associate Director Wild Rice Council Ph.D Candidate Environmental University of Wisconsin-Madison Annette Drewes Studies Save Our Rice Alliance Gary Drotts Area Wildlife Supervisor MN Department of Natural Resources Ann Geisen Wildlife Shallow Lakes Specialist MN Department of Natural Resources Shelley Gorham Area Wildlife Supervisor MN Department of Natural Resources Andrea Hanks Wild Rice Campaign Coordinator White Earth Land Recovery Project (WELRP) Tom Howes Natural resources Manager Fond du Lac Department of Resource Management Becky Knowles Plant Ecologist LLBO DRM-Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Beau Liddell Area Wildlife Supervisor MN Department of Natural Resources Doug McArthur Biologist White Earth Dept. of Natural Resources Michelle McDowell Wildlife Biologist Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge Rob Naplin Area Wildlife Supervisor MN Department of Natural Resources Beth Nelson President Wild Rice Council Ray Norrgard Wetland Wildlife Program Leader MN Department of Natural Resources John Persell Biologist LLBO DRM-Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Ron Phillips Regents Professor University of Minnesota Raymie Porter Research University of Minnesota Manager MN Conservation Jon Schneider Programs Ducks Unlimited Steve Smith Acting Director - Water Quality Minnesota Chippewa Tribe NE Regional Enforcement Ken Soring Supervisor MN Department of Natural Resources Mike Swan Director White Earth Dept. of Natural Resources Rod Ustipak Consultant Darren Vogt Wildlife Biologist 1854 Treaty Authority Rachel Walker Ph.D Candidate Water Resources University of Minnesota

51 S-21

Appendix B

Wild Rice Distribution and Abundance in Minnesota

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Leader Gary Drotts Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area Wildlife Supervisor - Brainerd

Purpose

To further the understanding of natural wild rice distribution and abundance in Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) staff and other Technical Team members of the Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota Legislative Study undertook an effort to consolidate and update existing natural wild rice inventory information. The following objectives guided inventory design and development.

1. Consolidate various data/information on the location (i.e. lake, wetland, or river segment) of natural wild rice stands in Minnesota. 2. Determine size and natural wild coverage for each location. 3. Determine type of water level management structure (if present) on each location and primary management authority. 4. Document Tribal, Treaty and/or State authority for each location. 5. Determine natural wild rice harvest potential, harvest pressure, and access for each location. 6. Provide a starting point for a useable data framework/information system for the long- term protection, management and monitoring of natural wild rice in Minnesota.

Methods

An existing dataset (Microsoft Access) maintained by the MNDNR Shallow Lake Program provided the starting point for this effort. This dataset originated in the late 1980’s based on a review and consolidation of the best existing data sources at that time (i.e. MNDNR Enforcement wild rice lists, tribal rice camps, etc.) followed up with field interviews to MNDNR Area Wildlife and Tribal offices in the primary natural wild rice range. This initial assessment found over 700 lakes in 31 counties totaling 1.5 million basin acres contained approximately 61,000 acres of natural wild rice.

Since this initial dataset was formed, various MNDNR, federal, treaty and tribal authorities have accomplished a significant amount of additional inventory work. This information was reviewed, consolidated and added to the initial dataset and sent out for review to MNDNR Area Wildlife and Treaty/Tribal authorities for their comments and input. Return information was entered into a finalized dataset.

52 S-21

Primary information collected consisted of a location (i.e county, basin name), basin area and estimated natural wild rice coverage. For basins having a significant stand of natural wild rice, additional information was requested as to: water level management restrictions (i.e. dam at outlet); general wild rice location within the basin; treaty/tribal authority; and harvest potential, pressure and access.

Information sources

Information sources included the following: x Minnesota DNR – initial survey data, 2006 Wild Rice Harvesters Survey, Fisheries lake surveys, Wildlife/shallow lake surveys, aquatic plant management permits, and aquatic plant survey data from Ecological Resources. x Treaty/Tribal - 1854 Treaty Authority, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Fond Du Lac Indian Reservation, Mille Lacs Indian Reservation, Leech Lake Indian Reservation, and, White Earth Indian Reservation. x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System

Results

Inventory results note that stands of natural wild rice were present or occurred in recent history on 1,292 lakes or river/stream segments in Minnesota. Of these 1,286 locations, 777 have information on natural wild rice coverage, which totals approximately 64,328 acres. The remaining 509 locations that currently do not have coverage information are primarily small lakes/wetlands on the edge of the current natural wild rice range (southern and western Minnesota) or river/stream segments.

On a county basis, the greatest concentration of natural wild rice locations is in St. Louis (8,939 acres), Itasca (8,448 acres), Cass (8,323 acres), Aitkin (4,859 acres), and Crow Wing (3,751 acres). These five counties contain over 60% of the inventoried natural wild rice acreage in Minnesota.

Recommendations x This inventory should be considered a work in progress. Further edits and review are needed, especially for small lakes/wetlands on the edge of current natural wild rice range and the numerous river/stream segments that may been missed in this inventory. x A procedure to review and update this inventory on a regular basis (every 5-10 years) should be undertaken. x Information gathered on harvest potential, pressure and access to these natural wild rice locations should be listed/posted on appropriate web sites (i.e. MNDNR web site).

53 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Aitkin Aitkin 01004000 850 298 Aitkin Anderson 01003100 97 30 Aitkin Bear 01006400 127 1 Aitkin Big Sandy 01006200 9,380 94 Aitkin Birch 01020600 449 5 Aitkin Blind 01018800 323 39 Aitkin Brown 01007800 97 34 Aitkin Camp 01009800 127 30 Aitkin Clear 01010600 123 20 Aitkin Cornish Pool 01042700 600 30 Aitkin Davis 01007101 76 30 Aitkin Deer 01008600 47 3 Aitkin Elm Island 01012300 656 30 Aitkin Farm Island 01015900 2,025 20 Aitkin Fleming 01010500 326 1 Aitkin Flowage 01006100 720 432 Aitkin Gun 01009900 735 60 Aitkin Hammal 01016100 376 1 Aitkin Hay 01005900 133 1 Aitkin Hickory 01017900 183 10 Aitkin Jenkins 01010000 127 1 Aitkin Jewett State WMA - Impoundment 01038300 180 30 Aitkin Johnson 01013100 27 6 Aitkin Killroy 01023800 23 4 Aitkin Kimberly State WMA - Lower Pool 01043300 300 30 Aitkin Kimberly State WMA - Upper Pool 01041100 900 76 Aitkin Krilwitz 01IMP002 30 6 Aitkin Lily 01008800 50 2 Aitkin Little Hill River State WMA - Pool 1 01043300 135 18 Aitkin Little McKinney 01019700 26 6 Aitkin Little Pine 01017600 126 1 Aitkin Little Prairie 01001600 78 1 Aitkin Little Red Horse Lake 01005200 32 3 Aitkin Little Willow River State WMA - Upper Pool W0642001 50 20 Aitkin Little Willow State WMA - Lower Pool 01033200 140 50 Aitkin Mallard 01014900 354 320 Aitkin Mandy 01006800 107 27 Aitkin Minnewawa 01003300 2,451 130 Aitkin Monson 01012600 48 25 Aitkin Moose 01014000 148 117 Aitkin Moose River 01r4

54 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Aitkin Moose Willow State WMA - Moose Pool 01035800 900 89 Aitkin Moose Willow State WMA - Willow Pool 01043100 300 50 Aitkin Moulton 01021200 282 1 Aitkin Mud (Grayling Marsh WMA, pool 1) 01002900 400 1 Aitkin Mud (Little White Elk) 01019400 135 68 Aitkin Nelson 01001000 71 1 Aitkin Newstrom 01009700 97 76 Aitkin Pine 01000100 391 4 Aitkin Portage 01006900 387 5 Aitkin Prairie River 01r6 Aitkin Rat 01007700 442 45 Aitkin Rat House 01005300 122 100 Aitkin Red 01010700 97 4 Aitkin Rice 01000500 83 50 Aitkin Rice (Big) 01006700 3,635 1,700 Aitkin Rice River 01r1 190 25 Aitkin Ripple 01014600 676 50 Aitkin Ripple River 01r3 Aitkin Rock 01007200 366 50 Aitkin Round 01013700 634 1 Aitkin Salo Marsh State WMA - Pool 01041500 690 76 Aitkin Sanders 01007600 55 36 Aitkin Sandy River 01006000 368 200 Aitkin Sandy River 01r2 Aitkin Savanna 01001400 86 1 Aitkin Savanna River 01r5 Aitkin Section Ten 01011500 440 52 Aitkin Section Twelve 01012000 167 1 Aitkin Shovel 01020000 230 207 Aitkin Sissabagamah 01012900 386 39 Aitkin Sitas 01013200 59 5 Aitkin Sixteen 01012400 18 1 Aitkin Sjodin 01031600 43 28 Aitkin Spectacle 01015600 107 1 Aitkin Spirit 01017800 523 26 Aitkin Split Rock 01000200 27 1 Aitkin Spruce 01015100 80 80 Aitkin Steamboat 01007102 59 15 Aitkin Stony 01001700 52 5 Aitkin Sugar 01008400 23 1 Aitkin Sugar 01008700 416 1 Aitkin Swamp 01009200 270 1

55 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Aitkin Tamarack River 01r7 Aitkin Twenty 01008500 153 119 Aitkin Unnamed (L. Wolf) 01002000 19 1 Aitkin Unnamed (Rice) 01041900 16 1 Aitkin Unnamed (Round Lake Pothole) 01028500 15 12 Aitkin Unnamed (Upper Blind) 01033100 14 3 Aitkin Unnamed (W. Washburn) 01026200 14 1 Aitkin Washburn 01011100 73 4 Aitkin Waukenabo 01013600 819 49 Aitkin West 01028700 51 20 Aitkin White Elk 01014800 780 350 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 1 W9001001 180 15 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 13 W9001013 586 2 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 14 W9001014 749 15 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 15 W9001015 365 1 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 16 W9001016 67 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 17 W9001017 185 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 2 W9001002 683 20 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 22 W9001022 141 10 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 23 W9001023 1,600 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 24 W9001024 35 2 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 26 W9001026 200 5 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 3 W9001003 186 120 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 5 W9001005 52 25 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 6 W9001006 200 1 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 7 W9001007 240 3 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 9 W9001009 269 120 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 9(2) W9001011 71 30 Anoka East Twin 02002000 171 1 Anoka Grass 02011300 Anoka Grass 02009200 Anoka Hickey 02009600 41 Anoka Little Coon 02003200 486 10 Anoka Pickerel 02013000 303 25 Anoka Rice 02000800 Anoka Rice 02004300 Anoka Rice Creek 02r1 Anoka Rondeau 02001500 552 Anoka Rum River 02r2 Anoka Swan 02009800 273 33 Anoka West Twin 02003300 18 Becker Abners 03003900 100 80

56 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Becker Albertson 03026600 73 Becker Aspinwall 03010400 178 18 Becker Axberg 03066000 47 Becker Balsam 03029200 148 10 Becker Bass 03048000 28 Becker Bass 03008800 208 10 Becker Bean 03041100 19 Becker Big Basswood 03009600 586 304 Becker Big Rat 03024600 1,102 110 Becker Big Rush 03010300 1,128 20 Becker Blackbird 03019700 284 42 Becker Blueberry 03000700 160 2 Becker Booth 03019800 48 43 Becker Buffalo 03035000 444 89 Becker Bullhead 03031200 39 6 Becker Bush 03021200 110 40 Becker Cabin 03034600 38 Becker Camp Seven 03015100 78 8 Becker Carman 03020900 217 30 Becker Chippewa 03019600 960 288 Becker Dahlberg 03057700 77 Becker Dead 03016000 296 Becker Dinner 03004400 53 11 Becker Eagen 03031800 85 Becker Equay 03021900 73 7 Becker Flat 03024200 1,970 197 Becker Gull Creek 03r2 Becker Gyles 03006600 42 16 Becker Halverson 03041200 18 Becker Height of Land 03019500 3,943 197 Becker Hubbel Pond 03024000 561 168 Becker Indian Creek Imp. 03r4 Becker Johnson 03019900 181 40 Becker Kneebone 03009000 149 15 Becker Little Basswood 03009200 105 31 Becker Little Dinner 03004500 12 5 Becker Little Flat 03021700 235 211 Becker Little Mud 03002200 25 6 Becker Little Rice 03023900 110 21 Becker Little Round 03030200 565 Becker Lower Egg 03021000 171 75 Becker Lyman WPA 03IMP003

57 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Becker Manomin Creek 03r5 Becker Mary Yellowhead 03024300 68 7 Becker Mud 03012000 170 Becker Mud 03002300 85 42 Becker Mud 03006700 88 83 Becker Mud 03001600 86 Becker Ottertail River 03r1 Becker Pearl 03048600 268 Becker Rice 03028500 51 Becker Rice 03017300 37 Becker Rice 03029100 245 196 Becker Rice 03020100 245 245 Becker Rock 03029300 1,198 240 Becker Round 03015500 1,094 Becker Schultz 03027800 103 82 Becker Shell 03010200 3,147 169 Becker Shipman 03000500 71 1 Becker Spindler 03021400 185 125 Becker Tamarack 03024100 2,227 245 Becker Tamarack NWR - Ogemash Pool 03IMP002 71 20 Becker Tea Cracker 03015700 122 30 Becker Town 03026400 117 35 Becker Trieglaff 03026300 111 56 Becker Twin Island 03003300 71 5 Becker Two Inlets 03001700 643 40 Becker Unnamed 03008700 23 Becker Unnamed 03060000 59 Becker Unnamed 03059800 36 Becker Unnamed 03059900 34 Becker Unnamed 03014000 43 Becker Unnamed 03109300 72 7 Becker Unnamed 03077600 20 10 Becker Unnamed 03071600 25 12 Becker Unnamed 03043400 21 17 Becker Upper Egg 03020600 493 24 Becker Wild Rice River 03r3 Becker Winter 03021600 117 43 Becker Wolf 03010100 1,453 10 Beltrami Big 04004900 3,565 250 Beltrami Big Rice 04003100 642 96 Beltrami Bootleg 04021100 308 185 Beltrami Burns 04000100 131 105

58 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Beltrami Campbell 04019600 462 23 Beltrami Carr 04014100 51 8 Beltrami Cass 04003000 15,958 10 Beltrami Clearwater 04034300 1,039 Beltrami Cranberry 04012300 77 46 Beltrami Dutchman 04006700 171 Beltrami Erickson 04006800 111 50 Beltrami George 04017500 89 18 Beltrami Grant Creek 04r1 Beltrami Grass 04021600 233 Beltrami Gull 04006400 170 34 Beltrami Heart 04027100 10 Beltrami Irving 04014000 644 97 Beltrami Kitchi 04000700 1,850 185 Beltrami Little Puposky 04019700 158 95 Beltrami Little Rice 04017000 72 Beltrami Little Rice 04001500 123 60 Beltrami Little Rice Pond 04002300 Beltrami Little Turtle 04015500 464 23 Beltrami Manomin 04028600 288 144 Beltrami Marquette 04014200 578 Beltrami Medicine 04012200 458 69 Beltrami Mississippi 04r2 Beltrami Moose 04001100 617 96 Beltrami Moose 04034200 133 Beltrami Norman 04002900 61 8 Beltrami Pimushe 04003200 1,350 135 Beltrami Puposky 04019800 2,120 236 Beltrami Rabideau 04003400 723 217 Beltrami Rice 04017400 55 Beltrami Rice 04012100 36 Beltrami Rice 04025000 124 Beltrami Rice Pond 04005900 247 123 Beltrami Three Island 04013400 836 125 Beltrami Turtle River 04011100 1,664 Beltrami Upper Red 04003501 119,271 Beltrami Whitefish 04030900 126 Blue Earth Rice 07005900 Blue Earth Rice Creek 07r1 Brown Altematt 08005400 Brown Rice Lake 08003500 Carlton Bang 09004600 58 1

59 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Carlton Bob 09002600 78 1 Carlton Cedar 09003100 62 10 Carlton Cross 09006200 110 6 Carlton Dead Fish 09005100 153 115 Carlton Flower 09006400 14 10 Carlton Hardwood 09003000 100 25 Carlton Hay 09001000 103 1 Carlton Island 09006000 456 46 Carlton Jaskari 09005000 74 74 Carlton Kettle 09004900 611 415 Carlton Long 09006600 17 4 Carlton Miller 09005300 156 156 Carlton Moose 09004300 Carlton Moosehead 09004100 Carlton Perch 09003600 796 597 Carlton Rice Portage 09003700 832 120 Carlton Sterle Pool W0854002 29 2 Carlton Tamarack 09006700 228 11 Carlton Tamarack River 09r1 Carlton Wild Rice 09002300 54 36 Carlton Woodbury 09006300 59 10 Cass Baby 11028300 736 7 Cass Bergkeller 11044700 120 5 Cass Beuber 11035300 135 15 Cass Big Birch 11001700 255 45 Cass Big Portage 11030800 956 30 Cass Big Rice (Remer) 11007300 2,717 1,411 Cass Big Sand 11007700 752 10 Cass Birch 11041200 1,262 1 Cass Bluebill 11039700 51 1 Cass Bowen 11035000 182 Cass Boy (& Boy River) 11014300 5,544 340 Cass Brockway 11036600 182 55 Cass Bullhead 11018400 88 Cass Cat 11050900 108 5 Cass Cedar 11048100 34 3 Cass Cedar 11044400 17 4 Cass Child 11026300 295 12 Cass Chub 11051700 57 51 Cass Ding Pot 11056500 29 29 Cass Donkey 11028000 54 Cass Drumbeater 11014500 376 5

60 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Cass East Twin 11012300 297 50 Cass Esterday 11051100 43 3 Cass Farnham 11051300 142 71 Cass Five Point 11035100 265 13 Cass George 11010100 720 262 Cass Gijik 11018500 118 1 Cass Goose 11009600 844 844 Cass Grass 11031500 113 Cass Grass 11009000 Cass Gull 11030500 9,541 15 Cass Gull River 11r1 219 110 Cass Hand (Lower) 11025100 122 50 Cass Hand (Upper) 11024200 316 20 Cass Hardy 11033200 89 2 Cass Hattie 11023200 592 40 Cass Hay 11019900 364 36 Cass Hole-In-Bog 11019700 76 Cass Hunter 11017000 189 2 Cass Inguadona 11012000 935 19 Cass Island 11010200 390 10 Cass Island 11036000 117 30 Cass Kelly 11042800 50 10 Cass Kerr 11026800 81 1 Cass Kid 11026200 167 3 Cass Laura 11010400 1,424 854 Cass Leech 11020300 109,415 4,000 Cass Lind 11036700 462 95 Cass Little Birch 11001800 25 25 Cass Little Boy 11036900 71 1 Cass Little Boy 11016700 1,396 10 Cass Little Swift 11013100 62 16 Cass Little Vermillion 11003000 138 15 Cass Little Woman 11026500 50 8 Cass Lizotte 11023100 75 50 Cass Lomish 11013600 282 197 Cass Lower Milton 11008000 80 5 Cass Lower Trelipe 11012900 618 20 Cass Mad Dog 11019300 27 Cass Margaret 11022200 230 3 Cass McCarthey 11016800 194 78 Cass McKeown 11026100 171 3 Cass Moon 11007800 58 5

61 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Cass Moose 11042400 92 1 Cass Mud 11030900 18 18 Cass Mud 11010000 1,440 1,300 Cass Norway 11030700 498 10 Cass Nushka 11013700 78 Cass Ododikossi 11007400 20 10 Cass Oxbow 11007500 172 4 Cass Peterson 11015400 139 3 Cass Pick 11026700 36 1 Cass Pickerel 11035200 66 Cass Pillager 11032000 213 10 Cass Pine Mountain 11041100 1,657 40 Cass Portage 11047600 277 Cass Potshot 11014900 28 14 Cass Rat 11028500 104 Cass Ray 11022000 183 37 Cass Rice 11040200 188 5 Cass Rice 11016200 342 137 Cass Rice 11013800 55 1 Cass Rice (Carrol's) 11022700 46 46 Cass Rice (Pillager) 11032100 232 100 Cass Rice Pad 11072000 14 4 Cass Rock 11032400 249 10 Cass Sailor 11001900 42 10 Cass Schafer 11000400 44 2 Cass Scribner 11044100 93 5 Cass Six Mile 11014600 1,288 70 Cass Skunk 11002700 145 30 Cass Spring 11002200 86 12 Cass Stephens 11021300 104 1 Cass Swift 11013300 359 51 Cass Tamarack 11034700 46 4 Cass Tamarack 11018900 63 6 Cass Thiebault 11002000 37 5 Cass Third Guide 11000100 44 14 Cass Thirty-Six 11017300 49 1 Cass Thunder 11006200 1,316 2 Cass Twin 11048400 168 Cass Unnamed 11077700 40 Cass Unnamed 11078000 10 4 Cass Unnamed (Pistol Lake Rice Bed) 11073800 22 20 Cass Unnamed (Rice Swamp) 11069800 11

62 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Cass Unnamed (Rice) 11061500 11 Cass Upper Gull 11021800 345 2 Cass Upper Loon 11022500 114 Cass Wabedo 11017100 1,272 5 Cass Wabegon 11040300 42 4 Cass Washburn 11005900 1,768 60 Cass Wax 11012400 95 10 Cass West Twin 11012500 200 11 Cass White Oak 11001600 68 1 Cass Widow 11027300 197 Cass Winnibigoshish 11014700 69,821 1,000 Cass Woman 11020100 5,360 54 Chippewa Chippewa River 12r1 Chisago Goose 13008300 710 Chisago Rush 13006900 3,170 Clay Cromwell 14010300 27 Clearwater Anderson 15007400 53 3 Clearwater Bagley 15004000 106 Clearwater Berg 15002500 50 Clearwater Clearwater River 15r1 Clearwater Duncan 15002400 18 Clearwater Elk 15001000 305 Clearwater First 15013900 60 3 Clearwater Gill 15001900 380 38 Clearwater Itasca 15001600 1,065 Clearwater Lomond 15008100 108 5 Clearwater Lower Red 15020200 Clearwater Lower Rice 15013000 2,375 1,568 Clearwater Mallard 15001800 123 25 Clearwater Minerva 15007900 239 36 Clearwater Mississippi 15r3 Clearwater Mud 15006100 294 103 Clearwater Pine 15014900 1,465 220 Clearwater Second 15014000 68 7 Clearwater Sucker 15002000 90 14 Clearwater Tamarack 15005600 21 Clearwater Tamarack 15013600 115 Clearwater Third 15014100 38 2 Clearwater Unnamed (Rice Bed) 15002100 150 45 Clearwater Upper Rice 15005900 1,860 1,116 Clearwater Wild Rice River 15r2 Cook Bigsby 16034400 89 1

63 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Cook Caribou 16036000 714 7 Cook Christine 16037300 192 19 Cook Elbow 16009600 415 124 Cook Fente 16074100 35 Cook Four Mile 16063900 593 42 Cook Grassy 16039000 22 Cook Gust 16038000 159 1 Cook Iron 16032800 125 Cook Jack 16052100 127 12 Cook Kelly 16047600 188 56 Cook Luffs 16000600 Cook Mark 16025000 126 Cook Marsh 16048800 62 31 Cook Moore 16048900 64 48 Cook Mt. Maud 16wtld2 Cook North Fowl 16003600 297 Cook Northern Light 16008900 443 133 Cook Peterson 16047800 104 1 Cook Phoebe 16080800 758 1 Cook Prout 16001300 18 Cook Rib 16054400 89 Cook Rice 16045300 230 92 Cook Richey 16064300 114 Cook Royal River 16r1 Cook South Fowl 16003400 508 Cook Swamp 16000900 Cook Swamp River 16r2 Cook Swamp River Reservoir 16090100 165 153 Cook Teal 16000300 73 1 Cook Temperance River 16r3 Cook Toohey 16064500 369 Cook Turtle 16025100 61 Cook Unnamed 16wtld1 Cook Unnamed 16041600 14 14 Cook White Pine 16036900 374 Crow Wing Arrowhead 18036600 285 40 Crow Wing Bass 18001100 65 13 Crow Wing Bass 18022900 114 1 Crow Wing Bay 18003400 2,435 1 Crow Wing Big Bird 18028500 205 10 Crow Wing Birchdale 18017500 80 40 Crow Wing Borden 18002000 1,038 31

64 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Crow Wing Buffalo 18015200 36 18 Crow Wing Bulldog 18001400 151 5 Crow Wing Butterfield 18023100 225 1 Crow Wing Camp 18001800 537 22 Crow Wing Caraway 18017900 40 32 Crow Wing Carlson 18039500 45 1 Crow Wing Clark 18037400 309 3 Crow Wing Cole 18012700 114 1 Crow Wing Crow Wing 18015500 378 Crow Wing Dahler 18020400 277 28 Crow Wing Deadman's 18018800 28 5 Crow Wing Deer 18018200 78 30 Crow Wing Dog 18010700 71 71 Crow Wing Duck 18017800 310 175 Crow Wing Duck 18031400 160 3 Crow Wing Eagle 18029600 356 1 Crow Wing Emily 18020300 675 2 Crow Wing Erskine 18000900 186 7 Crow Wing Faupel 18023700 42 25 Crow Wing Flanders 18024700 181 20 Crow Wing Garden 18032900 262 100 Crow Wing Gilbert 18032000 391 7 Crow Wing Goggle 18022300 107 11 Crow Wing Goodrich 18022600 382 5 Crow Wing Grass 18036200 45 1 Crow Wing Grass 18023000 78 4 Crow Wing Green 18023300 14 1 Crow Wing Greer 18028700 384 20 Crow Wing Half Moon 18023800 70 14 Crow Wing Happy 18010100 51 36 Crow Wing Hay 18044400 46 29 Crow Wing Hole-in-the-Day 18040100 217 90 Crow Wing Holt 18002900 164 10 Crow Wing Horseshoe 18031700 33 13 Crow Wing Island 18005200 37 18 Crow Wing Island 18038300 85 2 Crow Wing Jail 18041500 190 2 Crow Wing Johnson 18032800 129 25 Crow Wing Lily Pad 18027500 47 30 Crow Wing Little Pine 18026600 384 20 Crow Wing Little Pine 18017600 135 30 Crow Wing Lizzie 18041600 384 100

65 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Crow Wing Long 18003100 80 4 Crow Wing Love 18038800 88 18 Crow Wing Lower Dean 18018100 372 360 Crow Wing Lower Mission 18024300 739 50 Crow Wing Lows 18018000 320 45 Crow Wing Mahnomen 18012600 238 1 Crow Wing Mallard 18033400 73 4 Crow Wing Maple 18004500 68 20 Crow Wing Middle Cullen 18037700 405 2 Crow Wing Mississippi River 18r1 1 Crow Wing Mitchell 18029400 460 3 Crow Wing Mollie 18033500 421 17 Crow Wing Mud 18009400 78 6 Crow Wing Mud 18013700 132 40 Crow Wing Mud 18032600 82 60 Crow Wing Mud 18019800 103 10 Crow Wing Nelson 18016400 323 100 Crow Wing Nisswa 18039900 213 25 Crow Wing North Long 18037200 6,178 10 Crow Wing Olson 18017100 28 3 Crow Wing Ossawinnamakee 18035200 739 1 Crow Wing Perch 18030400 181 8 Crow Wing Pine 18026100 391 60 Crow Wing Platte 18008800 1,768 350 Crow Wing Pointon 18010500 193 14 Crow Wing Rat 18041000 100 2 Crow Wing Red Sand 18038600 569 28 Crow Wing Rice (Blomberg's) 18012100 78 60 Crow Wing Rice (Clark Lake rice bed) 18032700 181 124 Crow Wing Rice (Deerwood) 18006800 185 170 Crow Wing Rice (Hesitation State WMA) 18005300 168 138 Crow Wing Rice (Lowell State WMA) 18040500 85 33 Crow Wing Rice (Pratt's) 18031600 100 90 Crow Wing Rice Bed 18018700 50 47 Crow Wing Rock 18001600 210 10 Crow Wing Rogers 18018400 249 4 Crow Wing Round 18014700 144 5 Crow Wing Round (Round-Rice Bed State WMA) 18003200 82 5 Crow Wing Roy 18039800 310 5 Crow Wing Sebie 18016100 180 2 Crow Wing Sewells Pond 18044600 20 16 Crow Wing Sibley 18040400 412 10

66 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Crow Wing Smith 18002800 486 49 Crow Wing South Long 18013600 1,380 4 Crow Wing Stewart 18036700 254 5 Crow Wing Tamarack 18031800 34 30 Crow Wing Terry 18016200 102 55 Crow Wing Twenty Two 18000800 169 42 Crow Wing Twin Island 18010600 85 42 Crow Wing Unnamed 18020100 16 1 Crow Wing Unnamed 18041300 103 27 Crow Wing Unnamed 18055000 30 30 Crow Wing Unnamed 18005500 70 1 Crow Wing Unnamed (Blackies Slough) 18054400 33 20 Crow Wing Unnamed (Lost Rice) 18022800 157 80 Crow Wing Unnamed (Nokasippi R. Rice Bed) 18048500 166 40 Crow Wing Unnamed (Total's Pothole) 18054300 28 16 Crow Wing Upper Cullen 18037600 459 23 Crow Wing Upper Dean 18017000 263 10 Crow Wing Upper Hay 18041200 640 2 Crow Wing Upper Mission 18024200 895 5 Crow Wing Upper Whitefish 18031000 7,969 50 Crow Wing Velvet 18028400 167 2 Crow Wing Whipple 18038700 345 40 Crow Wing Whitefish 18000100 709 30 Crow Wing Williams 18002400 47 3 Crow Wing Wilson 18004900 63 4 Crow Wing Wolf 18011200 218 25 Dakota Blackhawk 19005900 Dakota Chub 19002000 301 1 Douglas Mud 21023600 50 Faribault Minnesota 22003300 1,915 Faribault Rice 22000700 Faribault Rice 22007500 Fillmore Rice Creek 23r1 Freeborn Bear 24002800 1,560 Freeborn Geneva 24001500 1,875 18 Freeborn Spicer 24004500 125 100 Freeborn Trenton 24004900 184 18 Goodhue Cannon River 25r2 Goodhue Rice Bottoms 25r1 Goodhue Sturgeon 25001701 Hennepin Grass 27008000 326 Hennepin Rice 27013200 294

67 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Hennepin Rice 27011600 Houston Blue 28000503 362 Houston Lawrence 28000501 142 Houston Target 28000502 424 Hubbard Alice 29028600 150 15 Hubbard Birch Creek 29r1 Hubbard Clausens 29009700 222 Hubbard Crow Wing 29011600 Hubbard Crow Wing River 29river Hubbard Deer 29009000 193 Hubbard Eagle 29025600 440 4 Hubbard Eighth Crow Wing 29007200 493 1 Hubbard Eleventh Crow Wing 29003600 752 1 Hubbard Fifth Crow Wing 29009200 406 10 Hubbard First Crow Wing 29008600 564 50 Hubbard Fishhook River 29r4 Hubbard Fourth Crow Wing 29007800 523 130 Hubbard Garfield 29006100 984 90 Hubbard George 29021600 882 18 Hubbard Hart 29006300 236 118 Hubbard Hattie 29030000 359 Hubbard Holland-Lucy 29009500 44 Hubbard Horseshoe 29005900 264 Hubbard Island 29025400 522 60 Hubbard Kabekona River 29r6 Hubbard Kabekona River 290075T2 Hubbard Kabenkona 29007500 Hubbard Little Rice 29018300 27 1 Hubbard Little Stony 29008000 55 Hubbard Loon 29002000 112 Hubbard Lower Bottle 29018000 712 10 Hubbard Lower Mud 29026700 30 30 Hubbard Mantrap 29015100 1,770 200 Hubbard Mud 29011900 146 30 Hubbard Mud Creek 29r3 Hubbard Necktie River 29r2 Hubbard Ninth Crow Wing 29002500 235 Hubbard Oak 29006000 58 1 Hubbard Oelschlager Slough 29000600 328 Hubbard Paine 29021700 258 Hubbard Plantagenet 29015600 2,620 Hubbard Portage 29025000 429

68 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Hubbard Potato 29024300 2,239 30 Hubbard Rice 29017700 230 58 Hubbard Schoolcraft 29021500 176 35 Hubbard Second Crow Wing 29008500 228 5 Hubbard Seventh Crow Wing 29009100 251 10 Hubbard Shallow 29008900 295 9 Hubbard Shell River 29r5 Hubbard Sixth Crow Wing 29009300 358 5 Hubbard Spider 29011700 593 Hubbard Spring 29005400 43 Hubbard Sunday 29014400 62 Hubbard Tamarack 29009400 36 Hubbard Tenth Crow Wing 29004500 185 9 Hubbard Third Crow Wing 29007700 636 40 Hubbard Tripp 29000500 155 1 Hubbard Twin 29029300 Hubbard Unnamed 29011500 16 Hubbard Unnamed 29011800 21 Hubbard Unnamed 29011400 24 Hubbard Unnamed 29008400 87 Hubbard Unnamed 29007900 38 Hubbard Unnamed 29017900 16 Hubbard Unnamed 29009900 26 Hubbard Unnamed 29015800 60 Hubbard Unnamed 29002100 Hubbard Unnamed 29026300 20 Hubbard Unnamed 29001900 15 Hubbard Unnamed (Boudora) 29008200 48 1 Hubbard Unnamed (Hay Creek) 29055400 38 20 Hubbard Upper Bass 29003400 30 Hubbard Upper Bottle 29014800 505 30 Hubbard Upper Mud 29028400 50 50 Hubbard Upper Twin 29015700 212 1 Isanti Elizabeth 30008300 323 Isanti German 30010000 340 Isanti Grass 30014200 33 Isanti Krone 30014000 142 Isanti Lindgren 30014400 75 Isanti Little Stanchfield 30004400 155 Isanti Mud 30006500 300 Isanti Mud 30010600 81 Isanti Mud 30011700

69 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Isanti North Stanchfield 30014300 153 Isanti Rice 30001800 Isanti Section 30006000 130 Isanti South Stanchfield 30013800 433 Isanti Typo 30000900 273 Isanti Upper Rice 30005700 208 208 Itasca Ann 31030500 94 5 Itasca Aspen 31069000 86 5 Itasca Bass 31057600 2,844 427 Itasca Big Fork River 31r3 Itasca Birdseye 31083400 73 11 Itasca Blackberry 31021000 240 50 Itasca Blackwater 31056100 674 300 Itasca Bluebill 31026500 144 14 Itasca Bosley 31040300 41 10 Itasca Bowstring (& Bowstring River) 31081300 8,900 1,335 Itasca Bowstring River 31r4 Itasca Buckman 31027200 222 33 Itasca Clearwater 31040200 67 10 Itasca Clubhouse 3105400 Itasca Coddington 31088300 70 18 Itasca Cophenhagen 31053900 Itasca Cresent 31029400 42 2 Itasca Crooked 31020300 80 12 Itasca Cut Foot Sioux 31085700 3,222 322 Itasca Damon 31094400 53 20 Itasca Decker 31093400 292 58 Itasca Deer 31034400 1,854 Itasca Dishpan 31099200 15 15 Itasca Dixon 31092100 666 67 Itasca Dora 31088200 477 89 Itasca Egg 31081700 118 11 Itasca Farley 31090200 33 5 Itasca First River 31081800 228 160 Itasca Grass 31072700 Itasca Grass 31052700 Itasca Gunny Sack 31026700 81 8 Itasca Hamrey 31091100 61 15 Itasca Harrigan 31017400 27 3 Itasca Hay 31003700 Itasca Helen 31084000 109 76 Itasca Hunters 31045000 162 16

70 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Itasca Ima 31063400 Itasca Irene 31087800 10 1 Itasca Island 31075400 291 10 Itasca Kelly 31029100 31 19 Itasca Lawrence 31023100 382 19 Itasca Leighton 31003200 242 12 Itasca Lillian 31075000 90 14 Itasca Little Ball Club 31082200 181 10 Itasca Little Cut Foot 31085200 1,357 136 Itasca Little Drum 31074100 89 22 Itasca Little Island 31017900 26 3 Itasca Little Moose 31061000 234 12 Itasca Little Rice 31071600 Itasca Little Spring 31079700 121 3 Itasca Little White Oak 31074000 493 25 Itasca Lost 31028900 Itasca Lost 31090000 26 5 Itasca Lower Pigeon 31089300 53 20 Itasca Marble 31027100 155 20 Itasca Marie 31093700 45 10 Itasca Middle Pigeon 31089200 182 15 Itasca Mississippi River 31r6 Itasca Morph 31092900 67 3 Itasca Mosomo 31086100 47 5 Itasca Mud 31020600 271 203 Itasca Munzer 31036000 108 3 Itasca Nagel 31037700 90 50 Itasca Natures 31087700 2,885 2,499 Itasca O'Donnell 31030300 47 10 Itasca Otter 31030100 Itasca Pigeon Dam 31089400 511 500 Itasca Pokegama 31053200 15,600 100 Itasca Pothole 31099100 Itasca Prairie 31038400 1,167 45 Itasca Prairie (& Prairie River) 31005300 29 1 Itasca Rabbits 31092300 209 157 Itasca Raven 31092500 97 70 Itasca Rice 31031500 37 15 Itasca Rice 31071700 Itasca Rice 31077700 Itasca Rice 31087600 911 729 Itasca Rice 31020100 115 6

71 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Itasca Rice 31070700 Itasca Rice 31094200 39 Itasca Rice Creek 31r5 Itasca Rice Creek 31r1 Itasca Rice River 31r2 Itasca Ruby 31042200 243 5 Itasca Sand 31082600 3,391 50 Itasca Shallow Pond 31091000 281 11 Itasca Simpson 31086700 35 5 Itasca Sioux 31090700 69 27 Itasca Skimmerhorn 31093900 30 6 Itasca Soneman 31027600 40 16 Itasca Spruce 31034700 58 58 Itasca Stevens 31071800 224 11 Itasca Stone Axe 31082800 37 4 Itasca Swan 31006700 2,472 50 Itasca Tuttle 31082100 56 16 Itasca Unnamed 31081500 109 5 Itasca Unnamed 31096100 10 2 Itasca Unnamed 31020400 28 3 Itasca Unnamed 31032200 28 2 Itasca Unnamed 31006600 23 3 Itasca Unnamed 31086000 24 5 Itasca Upper Pigeon 31090800 86 10 Itasca Walters 31029800 120 18 Itasca Wart 31085900 14 5 Itasca White Fish 31014200 31 2 Itasca White Oak 31077600 905 271 Itasca Whitefish 31084300 493 10 Itasca Wilderness 31090100 26 4 Kanabec Ann 33004000 363 18 Kanabec Grass 33001300 Kanabec Kent 33003500 34 Kanabec Knife 33002800 Kanabec Mud 33001500 Kanabec Pomroy 33000900 267 Kanabec Rice 33001100 172 Kanabec Rice 33003100 Kanabec Sells 33001800 64 Kanabec Twin or East 33001900 27 Kanabec Unnamed 33002900 21 Kanabec Unnamed 33011100 33 27

72 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Kanabec Unnamed 33001400 30 Kanabec Unnamed 33007200 31 1 Kanabec Unnamed 33001200 11 Kandiyohi Bear 34014800 128 Kandiyohi Blaamyhre 34034500 121 Kandiyohi Eight 34014600 89 Kandiyohi Glesne 34035200 205 Kandiyohi Monongalia 34IMP001 1,500 Kandiyohi Mud 34015800 2,516 Kandiyohi Ole 34034200 66 Kandiyohi Unnamed 34023600 117 Koochiching Nett 36000100 7,369 Koochiching Rainy Lake 36000100 7,301 2,000 Koochiching Rat Root 36000600 734 Koochiching Tilson Creek 36r1 Lake Bald Eagle 38063700 1,243 Lake Basswood 38064500 14,610 485 Lake Bluebill 38026100 44 11 Lake Bonga 38076200 138 138 Lake Cabin 38026000 71 55 Lake Campers 38067900 56 56 Lake Charity 38005500 26 Lake Christianson 38075000 158 Lake Clark 38067400 Lake Clark 38064700 49 Lake Cloquet 38053900 176 Lake Cloquet River 38r1 Lake Comfort 38029000 42 Lake Cougar 38076700 71 1 Lake Cramer 38001400 69 55 Lake Crooked 38002400 Lake Crooked 38081700 Lake Crown 38041900 69 Lake Driller 38065200 24 Lake Dumbbell 38039300 476 48 Lake Ella Hall 38072700 372 1 Lake Fall 38081100 2,322 23 Lake Farm 38077900 1,292 Lake Flat Horn 38056800 52 Lake Fools 38076100 14 14 Lake Gabbro 38070100 927 Lake Garden 38078200 4,236 212

73 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Lake Gegoka 38057300 174 14 Lake Greenwood 38065600 1,469 15 Lake Harris 38073600 121 18 Lake Hjalmer 38075800 109 2 Lake Hoist 38025100 117 Lake Horse River 38r5 Lake Hula 38072800 121 121 Lake Isabella 38039600 1,318 Lake Isabella River 38r4 Lake Island River 38084200 49 49 Lake Kawishiwi 38008000 468 Lake Kawishiwi River 38r2 Lake Little Gabbro 38070300 151 Lake Little Wampus 38068400 Lake Lobo 38076600 132 99 Lake Manomin 38061600 455 23 Lake Middle McDougal 38065800 104 Lake Moose 38003600 201 Lake Mud 38074200 164 Lake Muskeg 38078800 178 71 Lake Newton 38078400 Lake Nine A.M. 38044500 27 14 Lake North McDougal 38068600 273 Lake Papoose 38081800 54 3 Lake Phantom 38065300 70 Lake Railroad 38065500 11 1 Lake Rice 38046500 206 206 Lake Roe 38013900 76 Lake Round Island 38041700 58 58 Lake Sand 38073500 506 51 Lake Sand River 38r3 Lake Scott 38027100 52 Lake Silver Island 38021900 1,239 Lake Slate 38066600 293 Lake Snowbank 38052900 4,819 50 Lake Source 38065400 35 1 Lake Sourdough 38070800 17 17 Lake South McDougal 38065900 277 3 Lake Stony 38066000 409 245 Lake Stony River 38r6 Lake Upland 38075600 74 1 Lake Vera 38049100 262

74 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Lake Wampus 38068500 146 Lake Wind 38064200 952 10 Lake Wood 38072900 587 125 Lake of the Woods Baudette River 39r2 Lake of the Woods Bostick Creek 39r1 Lake of the Woods Lake of the Woods 39000200 950,400 225 Lake of the Woods Rainy River 39r5 Lake of the Woods Roseau Flowage 39IMP001 200 100 Lake of the Woods Silver Creek 39r3 Lake of the Woods Winter Road River 39r4 Le Sueur Rice 40wtld1 Le Sueur Rice 40011400 Le Sueur Rice 40003700 Le Sueur Rice 40001600 Mahnomen Grass 44004700 22 Mahnomen Long 44000200 117 Mahnomen Peabody 44-wetld Mahnomen Rice 44002400 120 Mahnomen Roy 44000100 689 Mahnomen Sargent (Little Rice) 44010800 174 McLeod Grass 43001300 McLeod Rice 43004200 McLeod Schaefer Prairie 43r1 Mille Lacs Dewitt Marsh 48002000 110 131 Mille Lacs Dewitt Pool 48IMP004 146 131 Mille Lacs Ernst Pool 48003600 300 200 Mille Lacs Korsness Pool 1 48003500 130 90 Mille Lacs Mille Lacs WMA - Headquarters 2 Pool W9004009 500 13 Mille Lacs Mille Lacs WMA - Jones 1 Dk Pool W9004008 520 3 Mille Lacs Mille Lacs WMA - Korsness Pool 2 W9004002 33 30 Mille Lacs Mille Lacs WMA - Korsness Pool 3 W9004003 18 5 Mille Lacs Mille Lacs WMA - Olson Pool W9004007 85 2 Mille Lacs Mille Lacs WMA - Townhall Pool W9004010 110 3 Mille Lacs Ogechie 48001400 732 Mille Lacs Onamia 48000900 2,250 1,350 Mille Lacs Rice 48001000 512 Mille Lacs Shakopee 48001200 771 Mille Lacs Unnamed 48004300 60 10 Mille Lacs Unnamed 48004400 500 Mille Lacs Unnamed 48005400 32 25 Mille Lacs W. brnch Groundhouse Riv 48IMP002 50 1 Morrison Bernhart 49013500 39

75 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Morrison Coon 49002000 75 75 Morrison Crookneck 49013300 200 Morrison Hannah 49001400 109 27 Morrison Long 49001500 128 32 Morrison Longs 49010400 60 Morrison Madaline 49010100 50 Morrison Miller 49005100 39 9 Morrison Mud 49009500 105 Morrison Mud 49007200 83 5 Morrison Mud 49002700 23 9 Morrison Mud 49001800 Morrison Peavy 49000500 140 Morrison Pelkey 49003000 113 10 Morrison Placid 49008000 537 Morrison Platte River 49r2 Morrison Popple 49003300 153 Morrison Rice 49002500 323 250 Morrison Rice Creek 49r1 Morrison Round 49001900 134 14 Morrison Skunk 49002600 320 256 Morrison Skunk 49000700 Morrison Sullivan 49001600 1,199 20 Morrison Twelve 49000600 159 80 Nicollet Rice 52003300 Otter Tail Armor 56038100 Otter Tail Beauty Shore 56019500 233 Otter Tail Berger 56114900 190 Otter Tail Davies 56031100 69 Otter Tail Dead 56038300 7,827 Otter Tail Duck 56092500 41 Otter Tail East Red River 56057300 292 Otter Tail Emma 56019400 473 Otter Tail Gourd 56013900 Otter Tail Grass 56011500 Otter Tail Grass 56072300 Otter Tail Grass 56071700 Otter Tail Head 56021300 499 Otter Tail Little McDonald 56032800 1,506 Otter Tail Long 56021000 Otter Tail Mud 56021500 138 Otter Tail Mud 56022200 437 Otter Tail Mud 56013200 155

76 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Otter Tail Mud 56114800 134 Otter Tail North Maple 56001300 161 Otter Tail North Rice 56034900 103 Otter Tail Otter Tail River 56r1 Otter Tail Peterson 56047100 141 Otter Tail Rankle 56093500 57 Otter Tail Reed 56087600 155 Otter Tail Rice 56000600 Otter Tail Rice 56035200 Otter Tail Rice 56070200 Otter Tail Rice 56021100 263 Otter Tail Rice 56036300 350 Otter Tail Rush 56014100 5,340 Otter Tail Sharp 56048200 160 Otter Tail Sixteen 56010000 107 Otter Tail South Maple 56000400 160 Otter Tail Star 56038500 4,809 Otter Tail Tamarack 56019200 440 Otter Tail Tamarack 56043300 470 Otter Tail Unnamed 56127300 126 Otter Tail Unnamed 56151700 23 Otter Tail Unnamed 56155000 14 Otter Tail Unnamed 56157800 29 Otter Tail Unnamed 56019800 69 Otter Tail Unnamed 56028400 83 Otter Tail Unnamed 56108300 198 Otter Tail Unnamed 56092700 35 Otter Tail Unnamed 56125900 12 Otter Tail West Battle 56023900 Otter Tail West Lost 56048100 915 Otter Tail Wing River 56004300 138 Pine Big Pine 58013800 Pine Cedar 58008900 71 Pine Crooked 58002600 94 85 Pine Fox 58010200 Pine Grass 58012500 Pine Hay Creek Flowage 58000500 66 40 Pine Kettle River 58r2 Pine Little North Sturgeon 58006600 20 Pine McCormick 58005800 Pine Passenger 58007600 75 Pine Pokegama (& River) 58014200 1,621 16

77 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Pine Rush 58007800 88 Pine Stanton 58011100 84 34 Pine Willow River 58r1 Polk Unnamed (Round) 60072100 9 2 Pope Rice 61006900 Ramsey Grass 62007400 Redwood Rice Creek 64r1 Rice Cedar 66005200 927 93 Rice Dudley 66001400 83 Rice Hatch 66006300 102 10 Rice Hunt 66004700 190 19 Rice Kelly 66001500 62 Rice Mud 66005400 269 54 Rice Pooles 66004600 182 Rice Rice 66004800 Rice Unnamed 66010300 26 Rice Weinberger 66004100 53 8 Rice Willing 66005100 53 5 Roseau Bednar Impoundment 68IMP002 240 40 Scott Artic 70008500 Scott Blue 70008800 316 120 Scott Fisher 70008700 396 190 Scott Rice 70006000 Scott Rice 70002500 328 160 Scott Rice 70000100 Sherburne Big Mud 71008500 263 100 Sherburne Buck Lake 71IMP007 30 26 Sherburne Clitty 71011600 56 Sherburne Fremont 71001600 466 Sherburne Jim 71011100 20 20 Sherburne Johnson Slough 71IMP004 65 10 Sherburne Johnson Slought 71008400 Sherburne Josephine 71006800 132 Sherburne Josephine Pool 71IMP008 143 72 Sherburne Kliever Marsh 71000300 37 Sherburne Long Pond 71003600 82 Sherburne Lower Roadside 71IMP006 8 7 Sherburne Lundberg Slough 71010900 50 Sherburne Muskrat Pool 71IMP003 299 15 Sherburne Orrock Lake 71IMP010 215 162 Sherburne Rice 71001500 11 Sherburne Rice 71007800 505

78 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Sherburne Rice 71014200 187 2 Sherburne Schoolhouse Pool 71IMP009 225 90 Sherburne Sherburne NWR - Pool 1 71IMP001 2 2 Sherburne Sherburne NWR - Pool 2 71IMP002 30 15 Sherburne Sherburne NWR - Pool 31 71IMP011 Sherburne Unnamed 71002500 31 Sherburne Upper Roadside 71IMP005 Sibley Titlow 72004200 924 St. Louis ??? 69IMP002 15 St. Louis Alden 69013100 190 St. Louis Anchor 69064100 316 32 St. Louis Angell Pool W0889001 500 80 St. Louis Artichoke 69062300 306 St. Louis Balkan 69086000 36 2 St. Louis Bear 69011200 125 125 St. Louis Bear Island River 69r8 St. Louis Bear Trap 69008900 131 St. Louis Big 69019000 2,049 20 St. Louis Big Rice 69017800 416 416 St. Louis Big Rice 69066900 2,072 1,700 St. Louis Birch 69000300 7,628 381 St. Louis Black 69074000 118 St. Louis Blueberry 69005400 130 13 St. Louis Bootleg 69045200 352 St. Louis Breda 69003700 137 135 St. Louis Burntside 69011800 7,314 St. Louis Canary 69005500 22 1 St. Louis Caribou 69048900 569 3 St. Louis Cloquet River 69r5 St. Louis Comet 69026700 28 St. Louis Cranberry 69014700 69 St. Louis Crane 69061600 3,396 600 St. Louis Deadmans 69IMP001 5 St. Louis Dollar 69053400 51 51 St. Louis Duck 69019100 126 St. Louis Eagles Nest #3 69028500 1,028 St. Louis East Stone 69063800 92 24 St. Louis East Twin 69016300 St. Louis Echo 69061500 St. Louis Ed Shave 69019900 90 St. Louis Elliot 69064200 393 20 St. Louis Embarrass River 69r3

79 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) St. Louis Five Mile 69028800 106 10 St. Louis Four Mile 69028100 86 1 St. Louis Gafvert 69028000 33 1 St. Louis George 69004000 42 St. Louis Gill 69066700 18 St. Louis Grand 69051100 1,742 10 St. Louis Grass 69077600 49 1 St. Louis Grassey 69091300 St. Louis Grassy 69008200 St. Louis Grassy 69021600 St. Louis Gull 69009200 196 20 St. Louis Hay 69044100 47 St. Louis Hay 69043500 78 78 St. Louis Hay 69015000 32 1 St. Louis Hay 69057900 114 114 St. Louis Hay 69043900 42 1 St. Louis Hay 69041700 82 45 St. Louis Hockey 69084900 139 70 St. Louis Hoodoo 69080200 252 252 St. Louis Horseshoe 69025500 39 10 St. Louis Indian 69002300 57 St. Louis Jeanette 69045600 St. Louis Johnson 69011700 473 24 St. Louis Joker 69001500 46 5 St. Louis King 69000800 320 39 St. Louis Kylen 69003400 16 2 St. Louis La Pond 69017700 176 176 St. Louis Leeman 69087500 284 90 St. Louis Lieung 69012300 476 10 St. Louis Little Birch 69027100 58 St. Louis Little Cloquet River 69r6 St. Louis Little Indian Sioux River 69r7 St. Louis Little Mesaba 69043600 St. Louis Little Rice 69061200 266 266 St. Louis Little Sandy 69072900 89 89 St. Louis Little Stone 69002800 163 St. Louis Little Vermillion 69060800 558 St. Louis Long (Butterball) 69004400 442 400 St. Louis Low 69007000 353 71 St. Louis Lower Pauness 69046400 162 1 St. Louis Martin 69076800 71 St. Louis Moose 69079800 82 62

80 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) St. Louis Mud 69015100 51 St. Louis Mud 69080000 71 18 St. Louis Mud 69004700 St. Louis Mud Hen 69049400 165 St. Louis Myrtle 69074900 876 St. Louis Nels 69008000 200 2 St. Louis Nichols 69062700 444 22 St. Louis One Pine 69006100 369 37 St. Louis Oriniack 69058700 748 St. Louis Papoose 69002400 16 16 St. Louis Pelican (& River) 69084100 11,944 119 St. Louis Perch 69068800 79 32 St. Louis Petrel Creek 69r4 St. Louis Picket 69007900 78 7 St. Louis Pike River 69r1 St. Louis Prairie 69084800 807 16 St. Louis Rainy 69069400 220,800 St. Louis Rainy (Grassy Narrows) 69064000 St. Louis Rat 69092200 St. Louis Rat 69073700 St. Louis Rice 69057800 41 41 St. Louis Rice 69080300 St. Louis Round 69004800 336 St. Louis Ruth 69001400 47 9 St. Louis Sandpoint 69061700 St. Louis Sandy 69073000 121 121 St. Louis Seven Beaver 69000200 1,508 1,282 St. Louis Shannon (& River) 69092500 135 108 St. Louis Side 69069900 25 15 St. Louis Simian Lake 69061900 81 5 St. Louis Sioux River 69r9 St. Louis Six Mile 69028300 103 1 St. Louis St. Louis River 69r2 St. Louis Stone 69004600 230 173 St. Louis Stone 69068600 160 24 St. Louis Sturgeon 69093900 2,050 243 St. Louis Sunset 69076400 309 6 St. Louis Susan 69074100 305 St. Louis Tommila 69003500 87 85 St. Louis Trettel Pool W0889002 30 3 St. Louis Turpela 69042700 76 61 St. Louis Twin 69050400 18 1

81 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) St. Louis Twin 69069500 St. Louis Unnamed 69063400 101 20 St. Louis Unnamed (Camp 97) 69059400 25 St. Louis Upper Bug 69040600 23 St. Louis Upper Pauness 69046500 215 1 St. Louis Vang 69087600 126 3 St. Louis Vermilion 69037800 49,110 250 St. Louis Vermilion River 69061300 1,125 562 St. Louis Wabuse 69040800 64 51 St. Louis Washusk #1 69040900 51 40 St. Louis Watercress 69079700 43 43 St. Louis Watercress (Mud) 69079700 30 St. Louis Wheel 69073500 11 6 St. Louis Whitchel 69053100 71 53 St. Louis White Iron 69000400 St. Louis Wild Rice 69037100 2,133 1 St. Louis Wolf 69014300 456 Stearns Anna 73012600 133 Stearns Big Rice 73016800 282 Stearns Cedar 73022600 152 Stearns Crow 73027900 461 Stearns Fifth 73018000 76 Stearns Fish 73028100 204 Stearns Grass 73029400 157 Stearns Gravel 73020400 55 Stearns Henry 73016000 62 Stearns Henry 73023700 191 Stearns Linneman 73012700 108 Stearns Little Rice 73016700 56 Stearns Lower Spunk 73012300 269 Stearns McCormic 73027300 211 Stearns Middle Spunk 73012800 242 Stearns Mud 73016100 55 Stearns Raymond 73028500 126 Stearns Rice 73019600 1,568 Stearns Sagatagan 73009200 170 Stearns Schultz Slough 73020100 29 Stearns Tamarack 73027800 470 235 Steele Oak Glen 74000400 350 4 Steele Rice 74000100 697 467 Todd Beck 77005600 57 25 Todd Cass County 77000400 25 18

82 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Todd Hayden 77008000 253 1 Todd Jacobson 77014300 40 Todd Jaeger 77007500 46 28 Todd Lawrence 77008300 172 Todd Little Fishtrap 77007400 Todd Little Pine 77013400 Todd Long 77006900 356 338 Todd Mud 77008700 398 318 Todd Pine Island 77007700 156 Todd Rice 77006100 675 60 Todd Robbinson Pond 77IMP001 60 30 Todd Rogers 77007300 185 130 Todd Sheets 77012200 100 Todd Stones 77008100 63 Todd Thunder 77006600 Todd Tucker 77013900 43 Todd Twin 77002100 317 159 Todd Unnamed 77020200 70 Todd Unnamed 77017600 40 2 Todd Unnamed 77019700 53 Todd Unnamed 77017800 42 23 Todd Unnamed 77014000 61 Todd West Nelson 77000500 84 70 Wabasha Pool 5 79IMP001 600 35 Wabasha Unnamed W0580001 160 25 Wadena Blueberry 80003400 555 30 Wadena Burgen 80001800 92 86 Wadena Finn 80002800 148 30 Wadena Granning 80001200 50 50 Wadena Jim Cook 80002700 238 Wadena Lower Twin 80003000 267 5 Wadena Rice 80002400 8 1 Wadena Round 80001900 58 58 Wadena Strike 80001300 76 76 Wadena Unnamed 80000700 16 16 Wadena Yaeger 80002200 384 346 Wright Albion 86021200 238 Wright Beaver Dam 86029600 253 Wright Butler 86019800 131 Wright Butternut 86025300 203 Wright Carrigan 86009700 162 Wright Cedar 86003400 191

83 S-21

Estimated wild rice Location coverage County name Location Name (i.e. Lake or River) MN Lake ID size (acres) (acres) Wright Gilchrist 86006400 388 Wright Gonz 86001900 152 Wright Henshaw 86021300 277 Wright Long 86019400 255 Wright Louisa 86028200 183 Wright Malardi 86011200 149 Wright Mallard Pass 86018500 51 Wright Maple 86019700 82 Wright Maple Unit 86015700 177 Wright Mary 86004900 331 Wright Millstone 86015200 221 Wright Mink 86022900 304 Wright Mud 86002600 128 Wright Mud 86021900 66 Wright Pelican 86003100 2,793 Wright Pooles 86010200 166 Wright Rice 86003200 246 Wright Rice 86000200 57 Wright Sandy 86022400 118 150 Wright School 86002500 76 Wright School Section 86018000 266 Wright Shakopee 86025500 206 Wright Smith 86025000 330 Wright Spring 86020000 63 Wright Taylor 86020400 78 Wright White 86021400 145 Wright Willima 86020900 246 1,286 total locations For the 777 locations that have coverage data 1,569,889 64,328

84 S-21

Appendix C

Wild Rice Harvest Survey The full report will be posted on the MNDNR website www.dnr.state.mn.us prior to March 1, 2008

Executive Summary

Introduction The following objectives guided the study design, survey instrument and final report for this effort. - To determine the characteristics of wild rice harvesters in Minnesota. - To assess current harvest levels and harvester satisfaction. - To assess current natural wild rice harvest use of Minnesota lakes and rivers. - To obtain wild rice harvester opinions of current state regulations and proposed revisions. - To determine factors that limit wild rice harvesting. - Identify information needs of wild rice harvesters, and the best means to deliver information to harvesters. - To determine support for natural wild rice management priorities.

In November of 2006 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources initiated a self- administered, mail questionnaire of all 2006 wild rice license holders (n=1,625) to gather information on the objectives listed above, and all 2004 and 2005 license holders who did not purchase a license in 2006 (n=945) to gather information on why they did not harvest wild rice in 2006. Completed questionnaires were returned by 53 percent (n=1,365) of the 2,574-license holder sample.

Characteristics The 2004 to 2006 wild rice license holder respondents were predominately male (82%), Minnesota residents (98%), and averaged 51 years of age. A large majority (81%) are 40 years of age or older. A majority harvested wild rice under only a state license (86%). The average age that harvesters began gathering wild rice was 31. Friends and parents were the primary means of introduction to the activity, and 69 percent of harvesters reported introducing others to gathering wild rice. The average harvester has 13 seasons of experience.

Harvest Levels Based on responses, an estimated average of 430 pounds of unprocessed natural wild rice was gathered per harvester in 2006. Based on state issued license sales of 1,625 in 2006, this creates a total harvest estimate of approximately 700,000 pounds of natural wild rice. Approximately two percent of 2006 respondents harvested more than 2,000 pounds of rice, while 79 percent harvested less than 500 pounds. When comparing these groups (those harvesting > 500 lbs and those harvesting < 500 lbs) there is a difference in both the average age they began harvesting (20 and 33 years old, respectively) and the average number of seasons participated (25 and 12 years, respectively). A large majority (85%) of harvesters harvest for personal use.

Harvester Satisfaction

85 S-21

A large majority (82%) of 2006 harvesters were satisfied with their overall wild rice harvesting experience, with only one in ten expressing dissatisfaction. Harvesters were neutral on the existing wild rice season opening date (July 15th) and slightly in favor of the current wild rice season hours (9 a.m. to 3 p.m.). Other comment topics included: high licensing fees, less than ideal water levels, lack of processor information, lack of enforcement, weather, shoreline degradation, motor boats in wild rice stands, beaver control, and a need for more regulation of genetically modified wild rice.

Use of Minnesota Lake and Rivers to Harvest Wild Rice A total of 3,151 trips were reported by 845 harvesters, resulting in an average of 4 trips per person to gather wild rice. Sixty percent (60%) of 2006 harvesters took three or fewer trips, while 12 harvesters (1%) managed 20 or more trips. One half (50%) of the respondents reported harvesting on only one lake, indicating that multiple trips were made to the same lakes. An additional 28 percent reported harvesting on two lakes. The average number of lakes visited for harvesting wild rice was 1.8 across all harvesters. The maximum number of lakes visited was six.

During 2006, over two-thirds (70%) of all wild rice harvesting trips were in Aitkin, St. Louis, Itasca, Crow Wing or Cass counties. The next five counties with the highest number of trips were Becker, Clearwater, Beltrami, Lake and Hubbard counties. The above ten counties had 91 percent of all wild rice harvesting trips. A total of 28 counties were identified as being visited for wild rice gathering.

While 407 locations were identified from the survey results to at least the county level, only 313 noted a specific name (i.e. lake name or river segment). Of these 313 locations, the top ten harvest locations based on harvest pressure (number of trips) account for 27.4 percent of the statewide total. Further review notes that 50 percent of total trips are represented by the top 32 locations and that the top 68 locations represent 66.6 percent of total trips.

State Regulations About half (53%) of the respondents supported a change in harvesting hours from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. to 10 a.m. - sunset, and three-fourths (77%) supported changing the wild rice season opening from July 15 to August 14. More than half (62% and 66% respectively) of the respondents opposed use of watercraft up to 38 inches wide or establishing a 7-day nonresident license.

Participation, Information Needs The most important factors identified by respondents that limit participation in harvesting were personal time, and knowing when and where to harvest wild rice. For respondents that did not harvest is 2006, finding a rice processor ranked highest after personal time. Where and when to harvest are again ranked high for information helpful to 2006 ricers. In order of preference, the preferred method for delivery of information is through web sites, pamphlets or as a section of the DNR Hunting Regulation Handbook. Other limiting factors identified in comments include the cost of the license, fuel and transportation costs, and access (to private and reservation lakes).

Management Priorities A large majority of respondents ranked water level management as the highest management priority, followed by availability of information. Seeding ranked third, while enforcement of regulations, access site improvement, and wild rice research were ranked fourth, fifth and sixth,

86 S-21

respectively. Other comments included protection from genetically modified rice, increased habitat protection, and excessive license fees. Specific habitat protection comments included more restrictions on shoreline development, protection from motorized watercraft, prevention of the removal of wild rice through aquatic plant management permits, and more management of specific lakes that are historical wild rice lakes.

87 S-21

Appendix D

The Life History of Natural Wild Rice

Growth and Development

The following description of the growth of wild rice plants is adapted primarily from the work of Dr. Ervin Oelke and others at the University of Minnesota unless noted otherwise (Oelke et al. 2000, Oelke 2007).

As an annual plant, wild rice develops each spring from seeds that fell into the water and settled into sediment the previous fall or before. Germination requires three to four months of cold, nearly freezing water (35q F or colder). Seeds exposed to drying die. Seed dormancy is regulated through hormonal growth promoters and inhibitors and by an impermeable, tough, wax-covered pericarp. Low oxygen levels can also inhibit germination.

Seed germination typically occurs when the substrate and surrounding water temperatures reach about 40q F. Depending on water depth, latitude, and the progression of spring weather, wild rice germinates in Minnesota sometime in April, well ahead of most but not all perennial plants. Within three weeks, rooted wild rice seedlings develop three submerged leaves. These leaves usually remain submerged and decay as the plant matures. Adventitious roots arise at the first leaf node and occasionally at the second and third nodes. Most, but not all, roots are shallow, often rust-tinged due to iron deposits, and may spread 8 to 12 inches. Natural mortality can be relatively high during the submerged leaf stage (Meeker 2000).

The emergent stage begins with the development of one or two floating leaves and continues with the development of several aerial leaves two to three weeks later. The floating leaves are apparent in late May to mid June in Minnesota, again dependent on water depth, latitude, and weather. It is at this stage of growth that wild rice is most susceptible to uprooting by rapidly changing water levels due to the natural buoyancy of the plant. Rising water levels can significantly stress the plant even if it remains rooted.

The upper portion of the wild rice stem is hollow, with thin evenly spaced partitions. The number of tillers, or additional flowering stems, can vary with plant density and water depth. In deep water there may only be one stem per plant while in shallow water the number can exceed 30. Tillers typically mature 7 to 14 days later than the main stem (Meeker 2000).

Wild rice begins to flower in mid to late July in Minnesota. Flowering times are dependent on both day length and temperature. Short day lengths trigger earlier flowering but a reduction in kernel number. Longer day lengths delay flowering while increasing kernel number. Warmer temperatures will accelerate development, and cooler temperatures will slow growth. Wild rice flowers are produced in a branching panicle with female flowers (pistillate or seed-producing) at the top of the panicle on appressed branches. Female florets typically number about 130 per plant. Male flowers (staminate or pollen-producing) are produced on nearly horizontal branches on the lower portion of the panicle. Natural wild rice is primarily pollinated by wind. High temperatures and low humidity can negatively affect fertilization rates.

88 S-21

There are several variations of the typical wild rice panicle. One is the bottlebrush variant, often associated with male sterility, in which the male flowering branches remain appressed and give the panicle a compact bottlebrush appearance. Another variant is the crowsfoot panicle, in which the female flowering branches spread in the same manner as the male branches. In another variant, the male florets are replaced by female florets, resulting in a gynoecious or entirely female panicle.

Cross-pollination is typical for natural wild rice because the female flowers develop, become receptive, and are pollinated before the male flowers on the same plant shed pollen. The female florets are receptive over a period of about ten days (Moyle 1944b). Cross-pollination is enhanced by plant-to-plant variation for flowering within the same stand due to the effects of water depth, non-synchronous tillering, and genetic differences among plants (Moyle 1944b, Meeker 2000).

Cross-pollination within and among wild rice populations helps maintain genetic variability and the biologic potential for wild rice to adapt to changing conditions. Some changes may be seasonal or annual in nature; others, such as changing climate in the Great Lakes region, will likely be long term. The variability in natural wild rice genetics that exists today may be a critical determinant of whether natural wild rice can adapt to changes in regional weather. Studies in northern Wisconsin found sufficient genetic diversity among geographically distinct stands of natural wild rice to identify four regional populations. The degree of diversity within stands varied widely, however, with larger and denser stands having higher levels (Waller et al. 2000).

When viable pollen grains land on the female stigma, they germinate within one hour and reach the embryo sac within two. Seeds are visible two weeks after fertilization, and they mature in four to five weeks. Immature seeds have a green outer layer that turns purplish black as the seed reaches physiologic maturity.

Seeds ripen over several days on an individual stem, starting at the top. Primary stems ripen earlier than secondary tillers, plants in rivers ripen earlier than those in lakes, plants in shallow water earlier than those in deeper water, and plants in northern Minnesota earlier than those in more southerly stands.

This staggered maturation process means that ripe seeds may be available within individual stands for several weeks, and across the entire range of natural wild rice in Minnesota for a month or longer. This extended period of “shattering”, or dropping of ripened seed, is an important mechanism that insures at least some seeds will survive to perpetuate the natural wild rice stand. The entire process, from germination of a new plant to the dropping of mature seeds, takes about 110 to 130 days (or about 2600 growing-degree days) depending on temperature and other environmental factors.

Not all wild rice seed germinates the following year. Under some conditions, natural wild rice seeds can remain dormant in the bottom sediment for many years to several decades if conditions are not suitable for germination. This allows wild rice to survive years when high water levels or

89 S-21

storms reduce or eliminate productivity. Wild rice can germinate and colonize habitats after other plants have been removed by environmental disturbance if a seed bank is present (Meeker, 1999).

Even under ideal growing conditions, wild rice populations follow approximately three to five year cycles (Jenks 1900, Moyle 1944b, Pastor and Durkee Walker 2006, Walker et al. 2006). Highly productive years are followed by unproductive ones followed by a gradual recovery (Moyle 1944b, Grava and Raisanen 1978, Atkins 1986, Lee 1986, Archibold et al. 1989). Recent study suggests that oscillations in wild rice may be caused by delays in nutrient recycling to plant uptake. Wild rice litter accumulation may inhibit plant growth and production (Pastor and Durkee Walker 2006, Walker et al. 2006). In particular, the amount of wild rice straw, stage of decay, and tissue chemistry (root litter) may affect available nutrients, influence production, and result in population cycling (Walker, Ph.D. thesis 2008).

Habitat Requirements

While the historical range of wild rice illustrates its broad distribution, its specific occurrence and abundance is in large part dependent on local environmental conditions. The following descriptions are a capsulation of the historical and current literature (Moyle 1944a, Rogosin 1951, Lee 2000, Meeker 2000, Oelke 2007). For more detailed information be sure to check the original sources.

Hydrology

Wild rice generally requires some moving water, with rivers, flowages, and lakes with inlets and outlets being optimal areas. Water basins with intermittent or seasonal flow may sustain beds, but annual production will fluctuate more widely. Seasonal water depth is critical. Wild rice grows well in about 0.5 - 3 feet of water, although plants may be found deeper. Shallower sites support strong competition from perennial emergent plants and deeper water stresses the plant to the point that seed production is limited or nonexistent. At Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge from 2002 to 2005, production and growth parameters were highest at water depths of 1- 30 inches (McDowell, personal communication).

Water levels that are relatively stable or decline gradually during the growing season are preferred. Abrupt water level increases during the growing season can uproot plants. Wild rice is particularly sensitive to this disturbance during the floating leaf stage. However, some observers feel that water levels kept stable over the long term (multiple years) tend to favor perennial aquatic vegetation over wild rice (David and Vogt, personal communication).

Water characteristics

Clear to moderately stained water is preferred, as darkly stained water may limit sunlight penetration and hinder early plant development.

Wild rice grows over a wide range of alkalinity, pH, iron, and salinity. It does best in water that has a pH range of 6.0 - 8.0 and alkalinity greater than 40 ppm. Some of the measured chemistry

90 S-21

parameters are alkalinity (5-250 ppm), pH (6.4-10.1 SU), Iron (0.1-3.0 ppm) and True Color (50- 300 Pt-Co) (Andryk 1986, Persell and Swan 1986).

The state of Minnesota instituted a water quality criterion for sulfate in wild rice waters of 10 mg/liter. The level was established based on observations by Moyle (1944a), however, other field observations and research show that wild rice can grow in waters with significantly higher sulfate concentrations (Grava 1981, Lee and Stewart 1983, Peden 1982). This research also indicates that factors such as oxygen levels and potential sediment anoxia are involved in the wild rice-sulfate connection.

While researchers have observed that natural wild rice ecosystems are relatively nutrient rich, excess levels of nutrients, especially phosphorus, can have significant adverse effects on natural wild rice productivity (Persell and Swan 1986).

Sediment

Although wild rice may be found growing in a variety of bottom types, the most consistently productive are lakes with soft, organic sediments (Lee 1986). The high organic matter content with a rather low carbon/nitrogen ratio is necessary to meet the rather high nitrogen needs of wild rice (Carson 2002). Nitrogen and phosphorus are major limiting nutrients for wild rice (Carson 2002). Flocculent sediments with nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations less than one gram per square meter are typically incapable of supporting sustained production (Lee 1986).

Competing Vegetation

As an annual plant sprouting each year from seed, wild rice can have difficulty competing with aggressive perennial vegetation, particularly where natural hydrologic variation has been reduced. Cattail (Typha spp.), particularly hybrid cattail (Typha x glauca), yellow water lily (Nuphar variegata), and pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) are examples of plants that have been cited as competing with wild rice (Norrgard, David, and Vogt, personal communication).

91 S-21

Appendix E Wild Rice Bibliography

1854 Authority. 2000. Wild Rice Resource Guide. Duluth, Minnesota, USA.

Abedinia, M., R. J. Henry, A. B. Blakeney, and L. G. Lewin. 2000. Accessing genes in the tertiary gene pool of rice by direct introduction of total DNA from Zizania palustris (Wild Rice). Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 18:133-138.

Ackley, F. 2000. Manoomin – A gift from the creator. Pages 8-10 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station. Date unknown. Minnesota Wild Rice Research. St. Paul, USA.

Aiken, S. G., P. F. Lee, D. Punter, and J. M. Stewart. 1988. Wild rice in Canada. Agriculture Canada Publication 1830, NC Press Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Archibold, O. W., A. G. Good, and J. M. Sutherlund. 1989. Annual variation in wild rice growth. Canadian Journal Plant Science 69:653-655.

Archibold, O. W. and B. J. Weichel. 1986. Variation in wild rice (Zizania palustris) stands across northern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:1204-1211.

Arnold, J. B. 1923. A story of Grand Portage and vicinity - compiled from the writings of Warren, Winchell, Neill, and Buck. Harrison and Smith Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Asplund, T. R. 2000. The effects of motorized watercraft on aquatic ecosystems. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and University of Wisconsin, Publication PUBL-SS- 948-00, Madison, USA.

Atkins, T. 1986. The life history and ecology of wild rice. In Wild Rice, The Natural Crop Conference, 13-15 May 1986, Lakehead University, Minaki, Ontario, Canada.

Atkins, T. A., A. G. Thomas, and J. M. Stewart. 1987. The germination of wild rice in response to diurnally fluctuating temperatures and after-ripening period. Aquatic Botany 29:245- 259.

Backer, C. 2003. Wild Rice Information. Unpublished. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, USA.

92 S-21

Ball, I. J., D. S. Gilmer, L. M. Cowardin, and J. M. Riechmann. 1975. Survival of wood duck and mallard broods in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 39:776- 780

Barko, J. W., and R. M. Smart. 1986. Sediment-related mechanisms of growth limitation in submersed macrophytes. Ecology 67:1328-1340.

Bayly, I. L. 1983. The caryopsis as a support organ for germinating wild-rice, Zizania aquatica. Canadian Field Naturalist 98(3):369-370.

Behr, M. 1977. Indian potential in the wild rice industry.

Benton-Banai, E. 1988. The Mishomis book: the voice of the Ojibwe. Indian Country Communications, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Berde, S. 1980. Wild ricing: The transformation of an aboriginal subsistence pattern. Pages 101-126 in Anthony J. Paredes, editor. Anishinabe: 6 Studies of Modern Chippewa. University Presses of Florida, Tallahassee, USA.

BSU-CRI, conference host. 2007. Adapting natural resources management in northern Minnesota to a changing climate. Presentations and notes posted online (http://www.cri- bsu.org/ClimateChangeFall07.html). Bemidji, Minnesota, USA.

Caldwell, V. B., E. A. Oelke, and W. A. Elliott. 1978. Seed dormancy mechanisms in wild rice (Zizania aquatica). Agronomy Journal 70(6):481-484.

Carson, T. L. 2002. The effects of sediment nutrient variation, water depth, and emergent aquatic perennials on wild rice (Zizania palustris) production at the Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Chambliss, C. E. 1922. Wild rice. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Circular 229. Wash. DC.

Chambliss, C. E. 1940. The botany and history of Zizania aquatica L. (‘wild rice’). Pages 369- 382 in Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institute, year ending June 30, 1940, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA.

Coleman, Sister B. 1953. The Ojibwe and the wild rice problem. Anthropological Quarterly 26(2):79-88.

Cregan, J. 2004. Aspects of seed storage, pollen travel and population dynamics of wild rice (Zizania palustris). Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Danzinger, E. J., Jr. 1990. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Second Edition. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, USA.

93 S-21

Day, W. R., and P. F. Lee. 1989. Ecological relationships of wild rice, Zizania aquatica. 8. classification of sediments. Canadian Journal of Botany 67:1381-1386.

Day, W. R., and P. F. Lee. 1990. Ecological relationships of wild rice Zizania aquatica. 9. production in organic-flocculent sediments. Canadian Journal of Botany 68:1542-1548

Densmore, F. 1928. Uses of plants by the Chippewa Indians. Pages 275-397 in 44th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Dore, W. G. 1969. Wild rice. Canada Department of Agriculture Research Branch Resource Publication 1393, Ottawa, Canada.

Durkee W. R., J. Pastor, and B. W. Dewey. 2006. Effects of wild rice (Zizania palustris) straw on biomass and seed production in northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Botany 84:1019-1024.

Duvall, M. R., and D. D. Biesboer. 1989. Comparisons of electrophoretic seed protein profiles among North American populations of Zizania. Biochemical Systematic Ecology 17(1):39-43.

Dzubin, A., and J. B. Gollop. 1972. Aspects of mallard breeding ecology in Canadian parkland and grassland. Pages113-152 in Population Ecology of Migratory Birds-A Symposium. Migratory Bird Populations Station, 9-10 October 1969, Laurel, Maryland, USA. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Research Report No. 2.

Ebbott, E. 1985. Indians in Minnesota. League of Women Voters of Minnesota. Judith Rosenblatt, editor. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis, USA.

Edman, R. F. 1969. A study of wild rice in Minnesota. Minnesota Resources Commission, St. Paul, USA.

Elliott, W. A. 1980. Wild Rice (Zizania aquatica). Pages 721-731 in W. A. Fehr and H. H. Hadley, editors. Hybridization of Crop Plants. Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America, Madison, USA.

Engel, S., and S. A. Nichols. 1994. Aquatic macrophyte growth in a turbid windswept lake. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9(2):97-109.

Fannucchi, G. T., W. M. Fannucchi, and S. Craven. 1986. The ecology of wild-rice. University of Wisconsin Agricultural Extension Service, Madison, USA.

Fassett, N. C. 1924. A study of the genus Zizania. Rhodora 26:153-160.

94 S-21

Ferren, R. R., and R. E. Good. 1977. Habitat, morphology and phenology of southern wild rice (Zizania aquatica) from the Wading River in New Jersey. Bulletin of the Torrey Botany Club 104:392-396.

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors. 1993+. Flora of North America north of Mexico. 12+ volumes. New York, USA and Oxford, UK.

Forest Stewardship Council. 2004. Regional Forest Stewardship Standard for the Lake States – Central Hardwoods Region.

Fruth, J. A. 1980. Harvesting wild rice.

Gilman, C. 1992. The Grand Portage story. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul, USA.

Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, second edition. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, USA.

Gould, F. W., and R. B. Shaw. 1983. Grass systematics. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, USA.

Grava, J. 1981. Minnesota Wild Rice Research 1980. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota. St. Paul MN.

Grava, J. 1982. Wild rice production in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Extension Bulletin 484:18-21

Grava, J., and K. A. Raisanen. 1978. Growth and nutrient accumulation and distribution in wild rice. Agronomy Journal 70:1077-1081.

Hansel-Welch, N. 2007. Personal communication. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Management Section, Shallow Lakes Program, Brainerd, USA.

Haramis, G. M., and G. D. Kearns. 2004. Invasive Herbivory: resident Canada geese and the decline of wild rice along the tidal Patuxent River. Pages 37-38 in M. C. Perry, editor. Proceedings of a Symposium: Mute Swans and Their Chesapeake Bay Habitats. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2004–0005.

Hass, B. L., J. C. Pires, R. Porter, R. L. Phillips, and S. A. Jackson. 2003. Comparative genetics at the gene and chromosome levels between rice (Oryza sativa) and wild rice (Zizania palustris). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 107:773-786.

95 S-21

Haygood, R., A. R. Ives, and D. A. Andow. 2003. Consequences of recurrent gene flow from crops to wild relatives. Proceedings of The Royal Society London B 270:1879-1886

Helgen, J. C. 1990. The distribution of crayfish in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries Investigational Report Number 405.

Henderson, M. 1993. A geographical assessment of wild rice in the Upper St. Louis and Vermilion watersheds. Project proposal to the 1854 Authority, Duluth, Minnesota, and Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Cloquet, Minnesota.

Henderson, M. 1994. A predictive model of potential wild rice habitat in the Vermilion, St. Louis, Rainy River and Lake Superior watersheds. Project proposal to the 1854 Authority, Duluth, Minnesota, and Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Cloquet, Minnesota.

Henry, M., and G. Norenberg. 1994. Invertebrate study of cultivated wild rice paddies in northwest Minnesota. Pages 80-83 in Minnesota Wild Rice Research – 1993, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 82.

Hilger, I. M. 1939. A social study of one hundred fifty Chippewa Indian families of the White Earth Reservation of Minnesota. 1980, Reprint. Thesis Catholic University of America, AMS Press, New York, New York, USA.

Hitchcock, A. S., and A. Chase. 1951. Manual of the grasses of the United States. Second edition. U. S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 200.

Holm, L.G., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The world’s worst weeds: distribution and biology. University Press, Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.

Hotchkiss, N. 1932. Marsh and aquatic vegetation of Minnesota and its value to waterfowl. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, Division of Food Habits Research.

Huber, A. 1936. Wild rice harvest, Indians at work. Office of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C., USA.

Huseby, J. T. 1997. Use of cultivated wild rice paddies and associated habitats by migrating and breeding waterfowl in northwest Minnesota. Dissertation, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA.

International Joint Commission. 1917. Final Report of Lake of the Woods Reference. Compiled by Whitehead Kluttz and Lawrence J. Burpee for the Secretary of State.

Jarvenpa, R. 1971. The wild rice gatherers of Rice Lake, Minnesota: a brief note on cultural historical indicators. Minnesota Archaeologist 31:71-105.

96 S-21

Jenks, A. E. 1898. The wild rice gatherers of the Upper Lakes: A study on American primitive economics. 1977, Reprint. Pages 1019-1131 in Reprinted from the Annual Report of the U. S. Bureau of Ethnology, 1897-1898. J & L Reprint Co., Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.

Jenks, A. E. 1900. The wild rice gatherers of the Upper Lakes: a study in American primitive economics. Pages 1013-1137 in Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897-1898. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA.

Jenness, D. 1931. Wild rice. Canadian Geography Journal 2:477-482.

Johnson, D. O. 1976. A spring waterfowl population study of the commercial wild rice paddies of Aitkin and Itasca counties. Thesis, Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota, USA.

Johnson, E. 1969. Preliminary notes on the prehistoric use of wild rice. The Minnesota Archaeologist 30(2):31-43.

Keenan, T. J., and P. F. Lee. 1988. Ecological relationships of wild rice, Zizania aquatica. 7. Sediment nutrient depletion following introduction of wild rice to a shallow boreal lake. Canadian Journal of Botany 66:236-241.

Kegg, M. 1993. Portage Lake: Memories of an Ojibwe childhood. John D. Nichols, translator and editor. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.

Kennard, W. C., R. L. Phillips, and R. A. Porter. 2002. Genetic dissection of seed shattering, agronomic, and color traits in American wildrice (Zizania palustris var. interior L.) with a comparative map. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 105:1075-1086

Kennard, W. C., R. L. Phillips, R. A. Porter, and A. W. Grombacher. 2000. A comparative map of wild rice (Zizania palustris L. 2n=2x=30). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 101:677- 684.

Kennedy, C. 1924. The nutritive properties of wild rice Zizania aquatica. Journal of Agricultural Resources 27:219-224.

LaDuke, W., and B. Carlson. 2003. Our manoomin, our life: The Anishinaabeg struggle to protect wild rice. White Earth Land Recovery Project, Ponsford, Minnesota.

LaMontagne, J. 2000. Use of migratory stopover areas by trumpeter swans in southern Alberta. Thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Lee, P. F. 1986. Ecological relationships of wild rice, Zizania aquatica. 4. Environmental regions within a wild rice lake. Canadian Journal Botany 64:2037-2044.

97 S-21

Lee, P. F. 2000. Research and the conservation of wild rice. Pages 11-14 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Lee, P. F., and J. M. Stewart. 1983. Ecological relationships of wild rice, Zizania aquatica. 2. Sediment plant tissue concentrations. Canadian Journal of Botany 61:1775-1784.

Lee, P., and J.M. Stewart. 1983. Ecological Relationships of wild Rice, Zizania aquatica. 3. Factors Affecting Seedling Success. Canadian Journal of Botany 62: 1608-1615

Lee, P. F. 1986. Summary report: the aquaculture of wild rice. Proceedings from Wild Rice, The Natural Crop Conference, 13-15 May 1986, Lakehead University, Minaki, Ontario, Canada.

Levi, Sister M. C. 1956. Chippewa Indians of yesterday and today. Pageant Press, Inc., New York, New York, USA.

Lu, Y., D. Waller, and P. David. 2005. Genetic variability is correlated with population size and reproduction in American wild rice (Zisania palustis. Var. paustris, Poaceae) populations. American Journal of Botany 92:990-997.

Maki, K., and S. Galatowitsch. 2004. Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade. Biological Conservation 118(3):389-396.

Martin, A. C., and F. M. Uhler. 1939. Foods of game ducks in the United States and Canada. U. S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 634. Wash., D.C.

Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and plants. Dover Publications. New York, New York.

Mather, D., and R. G. Thompson. 1999. Archeological perspectives on wild rice. Pages 15-26 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

McAndrews, J. H.and C. L. Turton. 2007. Canada geese dispersed cultigen pollen grains from prehistoric Iroquoian fields to Crawford Lake, Ontario, Canada. Palynology 31: 9-18.

McAtee, W. L. 1917. Propagation of wild duck foods. U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 465. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McDowell, M. 2006. Adaptive management of wild rice and pickerelweed at Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Manoomin Niikaanisag Wild Rice Coalition Building and Conference, 8-11 August 2006, Watersmeet, Michigan, USA.

98 S-21

Medsger, O. P. 1939. Edible wild plants. MacMillian, Co., New York, New York, USA.

Meeker, J. E. 1993. The ecology of "wild" wild-rice (Zizania palustris var. palustris) in the Kakagon Sloughs, a riverine wetland on Lake Superior. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.

Meeker, J. E. 1996. Wild-rice and sedimentation processes in a Lake Superior coastal wetland. Wetlands 16(2): 219-231.

Meeker, J. 2000. The ecology of “Wild” wild rice (Zizania palustris var. palustris) in the Kakagon Sloughs, a riverine wetland on Lake Superior. Pages 68-83 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Miller, J. R. 1987. Fall and winter foods of northern pintails in the Sacramento Valley, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:405-414.

Minnesota Department of Administration, State Demographic Center. 2007. Extrapolated population for Minnesota cities and townships outside the Twin Cities region, 2006 – 2035. http://www.demography.state.mn.us. Accessed 25 Oct 2007.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Tomorrow’s habitat for the wild and rare: an action plan for Minnesota wildlife, comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecological Services, St. Paul, USA.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Invasive species website. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/index.html, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Mississippi Flyway Council. 2005. Meeting Minutes, July 23-24, Robinsonville, MS.

Moyle, J. B. 1939. The larger aquatic plants of Minnesota and the factors determining their distribution. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Moyle, J. B. 1941a. Minnesota's wild rice crop: a lesser known natural resource. Conservation Volunteer 3(15):30-32.

Moyle, J. B. 1941b. Report on Minnesota wild rice for 1940. Submitted to W. L. Strunk, Minnesota Commissioner of Conservation, St. Paul, USA.

Moyle, J. B. 1942. The 1941 Minnesota wild rice crop. Fisheries Research Investigational Report No. 40, Bureau of Fisheries Research, Division of Game and Fish, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, USA.

Moyle, J. B. 1944a. Some chemical factors influencing the distribution of aquatic plants in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 34:402-420.

99 S-21

Moyle, J. B. 1944b. Wild Rice in Minnesota. The Journal of Wildlife Management 8(3):177-184.

Moyle, J. B. 1945. Manomin - Minnesota's native cereal. Conservation Volunteer. January- February:29-31.

Moyle, J. B. and P. Krueger. 1964. Wild Rice in Minnesota. The Conservation Volunteer. Nov. – Dec. pp. 30-37.

Moyle, J. B., editor. 1964. Ducks and land use in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 8, St. Paul, USA.

Moyle, J. B. 1969. Wild rice - some notes, comments and problems. Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish No. 47. Revised from Seminar on Wild Rice, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota.

Murray, M. 2007. Killer reed’s lethal weapon discovered. The News Journal. 18 October 2007. www.delawareonline.com.

Myers, J. 2006. Breaking up the forest. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. January-February, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb06/breaking_up.html.

Nelson, R. N. 1986. The wild rice industry: economic analysis of rapid growth and implications for Minnesota. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA.

Norrgard, R. 2006. An overview of threats to the future of wild rice conservation and management. Manoomin Niikaanisag Wild Rice Coalition Building and Conference, 8- 11 August 2006, Watersmeet, Michigan, USA.

Nute, G. 1941. The voyageur's highway, Minnesota's border lake land. The Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, USA.

Nute, G. 1950. Rainy River country: a brief history of the region bordering Minnesota and Ontario. The Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, USA.

Oelke, E. A. 1993. Wild rice: domestication of a native North American genus. Pages 235-243 in J. Janick and J. E. Simon, editors. New crops. Wiley, New York, New York, USA.

Oelke, E. A. 2007. Saga of the grain: a tribute to Minnesota cultivated wild rice growers. Hobar Publications. Lakeville, MN.

Oelke, E. A., P. R. Bloom, R. A. Porter, and Q. Liu. 2000. Wild rice plant development and seed physiology. Pages 54-67 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

100 S-21

Oelke, E. A., W. A. Elliot, M. F. Kern Camp, and D. N. Noetzel. 1973. Commercial production of wild rice. University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service, Extension Folder 284. St. Paul, USA.

Oelke, E. A., J. Grava, D. Noetzel, D. Barron, J. Percich, C. Schertz, J. Strait, and R. Stucker. 1982. Wild rice production in Minnesota. Minnesota Agricultural Extension Bulletin 464-1982, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Oelke, E. A., D. G. LeGare, and H. J. Schumer. 1995. Wild rice production research – 1995. Minnesota Agricultural Extension Station Miscellaneous Bulletin Publication 89-1996, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Ownby, G. B., and T. Morley. 1991. Vascular plants of Minnesota: a checklist and atlas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.

Pastor, J., and R. W. Durkee Walker. 2006. Delays in nutrient cycling and plant population oscillations. Oikos 112(3):698-705.

Pedan, D. G. 1977. Waterfowl use of exotic wild rice habitat in northern Saskatchewan. Canadian Field Naturalist 91:286-287.

Peden, D. G. 1982. Factors associated with growth of wild rice in northern Saskatchewan. Arctic 35(2):307-311.

Persell, J., and M. Swan. 1986. Wild rice ecosystems, a general description. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Water Research Lab, Cass Lake, USA.

Pillsbury, R. W., and E. A. Bergey. 2000. The effects of root mass and disturbance on wild rice (Palustris aquatica) survivorship. Pages 206-214 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Pip, E., and J. Stepaniuk. 1988. The effect of flooding on wild rice, Zizania aquatica L. Aquatic Botany 32:283-290.

Porter, R. A., R. L. Phillips, R. F. Nyvall, and E. A. Oelke. 2000. A genetic overview of wild rice from three decades of breeding. Pages 109-121 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Radomski, P., and T. J. Goeman. 2001. Consequences of human lakeshore development on emergent and floating-leaf vegetation abundance. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:46-61.

Reagen, A. B. 1924. The Bois Forte Chippewa. Wisconsin Archaeologist, New Series 3 (Sept.):101-132.

101 S-21

Reagen, A. B. 1928. Plants used by the Bois Forte Chippewa (Ojibwe) Indians of Minnesota. Wisconsin Archaeologist, New Series 7 (July):230-248.

Reagen, A. B. 1933. Some notes on the grand medicine society of the Bois Forte Ojibwe. Americana 27:502-519.

Remecke, K. J., and R. B. Owen, Jr. 1980. Food use and nutrition of black ducks in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:549-558.

Richards, C., J. Gunderson, P. Tucker, and M. McDonald. 1995. Crayfish and baitfish culture in wild rice paddies. Natural Resources Research Institute, Technical Report NRRI/TR- 95/39, University of Minnesota, Duluth, USA.

Ritzenhaler, R. E. 1970. The woodland Indians of the Western Great Lakes. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York, USA.

Rogosin, A. 1951. An ecological history of wild rice. Minnesota Commission on Wild Rice. Minnesota Department of Conservation, St. Paul, USA.

Rossman, L. A. 1939. Wild Rice. Grand Rapids, Minnesota.

Rossman, G., A. Rossman, and R. Rossman. 1982. Recollections of 50 years: duck hunting in northern Minnesota. Northprint Company, Grand Rapids, Minnesota, USA.

Roufs, T. G. 1975. The Anishinabe of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Indian Tribal Series, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

Sain, P. 1983. Decomposition of wild rice (Zizania aquatica) straw in two natural lakes in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany 62:1352-1356.

Saunders, C. F. 1935. Useful wild plants of the United States and Canada. Robert M. McBride and Co, New York, New York, USA.

Schlender, J. H. 2000. Forward. Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Seeley, M. 2006. Minnesota weather almanac. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul, USA.

Seeley, M. 2007a. Climate change implications for Minnesota’s tourism and recreation. Sustainable Tourism Conference presentation, 25 April, 2007, Chanhassen, USA.

Seeley, M. 2007b. Weather Talk. Minnesota Public Radio. December 28.

102 S-21

Simpson, W. 1941. The wild rice crop on Minnewawa Lake. Letter to the Division of Drainage and Water, Minnesota Department of Conservation, St. Paul, USA.

Sorenson, D. J. 1973. A spring waterfowl population study of the Red Lake watershed. Thesis, Bemidji State University, Minnesota, USA.

Stebbins, G. L., and B. Crampton. 1961. A suggested revision of the grass genera of temperate North America. Recent Advances in Botany 1:133-145.

Stephenson, S., and P. Lee. 1987. Ecological relationships of wild rice, Zizania aquatica. 6. The effects of increases in water depth on vegetative and reproductive production. Canadian Journal of Botany 65:2128-2132.

Stickney, G. P. 1896. Indian use of wild rice. Anthropology 9:115-121.

Stoddard, C. H. 1957. Utilization of waste swamplands for wild rice production. Land Economics 33(1):77-80.

Stoudt, J. M. 1944. The food preferences of mallards in the Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 8:110-112.

Stoudt, J. M. 1969. Relationships between waterfowl and water areas on the Redvers waterfowl study area. Pages 123-131 in Saskatoon Wetlands Seminar, Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series 6.

Svedarsky, W. D. 1995. Waterfowl, nongame birds, and invertebrates associated with cultivated wild rice paddies in northwest Minnesota. Northwest Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Crookston, USA.

Tanner, H. H., editor. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian history. Civilization of the American Indian Series, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, USA.

Terrell E. E., and H. Robinson. 1974. Luziolinae, a new subtribe of Oryzoid grasses. Bulletin Torrey Botany Club 101:235-245.

Tester, J. R. 1995. Minnesota’s natural heritage. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.

Thai, W. 2005. Transgenic crops: the good, the bad, and the laws. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 6(2):873-891.

Thomas, A.G., and J. M. Stewart. 1969. The effect of different water depths on the growth of wild rice. Canadian Journal of Botany 47:1525-1531.

103 S-21

Tynan, T. 2000. Testing the effects of motorboats on wild rice (Zizania palustris var. interior). Pages 192-205 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

U. S. Forest Service. North Central Research Station - The changing Midwest assessment: percent change in density of seasonal housing units, 1980-2000. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4153/deltawest/humandemo/seasonal001.asp. Accessed 22 Oct 2007.

Ustipak, R. 1983. Wild rice initiative. Minnesota Waterfowl Assn. News, Jan/Feb, Page 7.

Valppu, S. H. 2000. Paleoethnobotanical investigations at the Big Rice Site: Laurel culture use of wild rice (Zizania aquatica L.) and associated radiocarbon dates. Pages 27-39 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Vennum, T. Jr. 1988. Wild rice and the Ojibway people. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul, USA.

Walker, R.D., Pastor, J., Dewey, B.W. (2006) Effects of wild rice (Zizania palustris L.) straw on biomass and seed production in northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Botany, 84 (6): 1019-1024.

Walker, S. D. 1939. The wild rice crop on Nett Lake. Memorandum to M. L. Burns, Acting Superintendent of the Consolidated Chippewa Agency, Cass Lake, Minnesota, USA.

Waller, D. M., Y. Lu, and P. David. 2000. Genetic variation among populations of wild rice (Zizania palustris). Pages 122-135 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Walsh, R. 1998. Wild and wilder: is America's native cereal still harvested by Indians in canoes? Natural History 107:82-85.

Warren, W. W. 1984. History of the Ojibwe people. 1984, Reprint. The Minnesota Historical Society, St Paul, USA.

Warwick, S. I., and S. G. Aiken. 1986. Electrophoretic evidence for the recognition of two species in annual wild rice (Zizania, Poaceae). Systematic Botany 11(3):464-473.

Weir, C. E., and H. M. Dale. 1960. Developmental study of wild rice, Zizania aquatica L. Canadian Journal of Botany 38:719-739.

Weiss, R. 2006. Gene-altered profit-killer: a slight taint of biotech rice puts farmers’ overseas sales in peril. Washington Post. 21 September 2006.

104 S-21

Wilcox, D. A., and J. E. Meeker. 1991. Disturbance effects on aquatic vegetation in regulated and unregulated lakes in northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Botany 69:1542- 1551.

Wilcox, D. A., J. E. Meeker, and J. E. Elias. 1992. Impacts of water-level regulation on wetlands of the Great Lakes. Phase 2 Report to Working Committee 2, International Joint Commission's Water-Level Reference Study.

Wilcox, K. L., S. A. Petrie, L. A. Maynard, and S. W. Meyer. 2003. Historical distribution and abundance of Phragmites australis at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29(4):664-680.

Winchell, E. H. 1984. Wild rice: production, prices and marketing. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA.

Winchell, N. H. 1911. The aborigines of Minnesota: a report based on the collections of Jacob V. Brower and the field surveys and notes of Alfred J. Hill and Theodore H. Lewis. The Minnesota Historical Society, The Pioneer Company, St. Paul, USA.

105 S-21

Appendix F Stakeholder Comments

106 S-21

107 S-21

108 S-21

109 S-21

110 S-21

111 S-21

112 S-21

113 S-21

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 35704 County Highway 26 Rochert, Minnesota 56578-9638 Phone: 218/847-2641 Fax: 218/847-9141 TMC-08-003 February 15, 2008

Ray Norrgard Wetland Wildlife Program Leader Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, MN 55155-4020

Subject: Wild Rice Study document “Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota.”

Dear Mr Norrgard:

This is a letter of endorsement for the above mentioned document and for the document development process. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has long recognized the ecological importance of natural wild rice stands and associated wetlands. The establishment of National Wildlife Refuges, such as Tamarac and Rice Lake, for the purpose of managing these wetland habitats for the benefit of migrating and resident wildlife is evidence of this appreciation. This study, which provides exceptional background information on the importance of natural wild rice as well as identifies potential threats and management challenges, will be extremely useful in the continued management of this critical resource. Additionally, the process fostered a close working relationship between State, Tribal and Federal governments, university researchers, non-government organizations and well as interested citizens. This collaborative effort is essential to insuring the abundance of natural wild rice for future generations.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process and provide comments.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boyle Refuge Manager

114 S-22

Minnesota Natural Wild Rice Harvester Survey: A Study of Harvesters’ Activities and Opinions

Wild rice harvesters on Mallard Lake, Aitkin County, MN, 2006

Final Report

A study conducted by: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Management Section of Wildlife S-22

Minnesota Natural Wild Rice Harvester Survey: A Study of Harvesters’ Activities and Opinions

December 2007

Prepared by:

Ray Norrgard Wetland Wildlife Program Leader Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Section of Wildlife

Gary Drotts Brainerd Area Wildlife Manager Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Section of Wildlife

Annette Drewes Consultant P.O. Box 1528 Bemidji, MN 56619

Nancy Dietz Shallow Lakes Program Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Section of Wildlife

Recommended citation for this report:

Norrgard, R., Drotts, G., Drewes. A., and Dietz, N. 2007. Minnesota Natural Wild Rice Harvester Survey: A Study of Harvesters’ Activities and Opinions. Management Section of Wildlife, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. 139 pp.

ii Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Acknowledgments

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Management Section of Wildlife through Minnesota issued wild rice harvester license fees, supported this study. We would like to thank Margaret Dexter (Research Specialist, MNDNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Management Section of Wildlife) for questionnaire and database design assistance, Nathan Doucette (Student Intern, MNDNR, Brainerd Area Wildlife Office) for data input efforts, and Lori Snider (Office Specialist, MNDNR, Brainerd Area Wildlife Office) for report format and editing efforts. In addition, we thank the many state licensed wild rice harvesters who took the time to complete this survey and helped to further understand wild rice harvester characteristics, activities, lakes and rivers harvested, and management opinions.

iii Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Executive Summary

The following objectives guided the study design, survey instrument and final report for this effort. - To determine the characteristics of wild rice harvesters in Minnesota. - To assess current harvest levels and harvester satisfaction. - To assess current natural wild rice harvest use of Minnesota lakes and rivers. - To obtain wild rice harvester opinions of current state regulations and proposed revisions. - To determine factors that limit wild rice harvesting. - Identify information needs of wild rice harvesters, and the best means to deliver information to harvesters. - To determine support for natural wild rice management priorities.

In November of 2006 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources initiated a self- administered, mail questionnaire of all 2006 wild rice license holders (n=1,625) to gather information on the objectives listed above, and all 2004 and 2005 license holders who did not purchase a license in 2006 (n=945) to gather information on why they did not harvest wild rice in 2006. Completed questionnaires were returned by 53 percent (n=1,365) of the 2,574-license holder sample.

Characteristics

The 2004 to 2006 wild rice license holder respondents were predominately male (82%), Minnesota residents (98%), and averaged 51 years of age. A large majority (81%) are 40 years of age or older. A majority harvested wild rice under only a state license (86%). The average age that harvesters began gathering wild rice was 31. Friends and parents were the primary means of introduction to the activity, and 69 percent of harvesters reported introducing others to gathering wild rice. The average harvester has 13 seasons of experience.

Harvest Levels

Based on responses, an estimated average of 430 pounds of unprocessed natural wild rice was gathered per harvester in 2006. Based on state issued license sales of 1,625 in 2006, this creates a total harvest estimate of approximately 700,000 pounds of natural wild rice. Approximately two percent of 2006 respondents harvested more than 2,000 pounds of rice, while 79 percent harvested less than 500 pounds. When comparing these groups (those harvesting > 500 lbs and those harvesting < 500 lbs) there is a difference in both the average age they began harvesting (20 and 33 years old, respectively) and the average number of seasons participated (25 and 12 years, respectively). A large majority (85%) of harvesters harvest for personal use.

Harvester Satisfaction

A large majority (82%) of 2006 harvesters were satisfied with their overall wild rice harvesting experience, with only one in ten expressing dissatisfaction. Harvesters were neutral on the existing wild rice season opening date (July 15th) and slightly in favor of the current wild rice

iv Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

season hours (9 a.m. to 3 p.m.). Other comment topics included: high licensing fees, less than ideal water levels, lack of processor information, lack of enforcement, weather, shoreline degradation, motor boats in wild rice stands, beaver control, and a need for more regulation of genetically modified wild rice.

Use of Minnesota Lake and Rivers to Harvest Wild Rice

A total of 3,151 trips were reported by 845 harvesters, resulting in an average of 4 trips per person to gather wild rice. Sixty percent (60%) of 2006 harvesters took three or fewer trips, while 12 harvesters (1%) managed 20 or more trips. One half (50%) of the respondents reported harvesting on only one lake, indicating that multiple trips were made to the same lakes. An additional 28 percent reported harvesting on two lakes. The average number of lakes visited for harvesting wild rice was 1.8 across all harvesters. The maximum number of lakes visited was six.

During 2006, over two-thirds (70%) of all wild rice harvesting trips were in Aitkin, St. Louis, Itasca, Crow Wing or Cass counties. The next five counties with the highest number of trips were Becker, Clearwater, Beltrami, Lake and Hubbard counties. The above ten counties had 91 percent of all wild rice harvesting trips. A total of 28 counties were identified as being visited for wild rice gathering.

While 407 locations were identified from the survey results to at least the county level, only 313 noted a specific name (i.e. lake name or river segment). Of these 313 locations, the top ten harvest locations based on harvest pressure (number of trips) account for 27.4 percent of the statewide total. Further review notes that 50 percent of total trips are represented by the top 32 locations and that the top 68 locations represent 66.6 percent of total trips.

State Regulations

About half (53%) of the respondents supported a change in harvesting hours from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. to 10 a.m. - sunset, and three-fourths (77%) supported changing the wild rice season opening from July 15 to August 14. More than half (62% and 66% respectively) of the respondents opposed use of watercraft up to 38 inches wide or establishing a 7-day nonresident license.

Participation, Information Needs

The most important factors identified by respondents that limit participation in harvesting were personal time, and knowing when and where to harvest wild rice. For respondents that did not harvest is 2006, finding a rice processor ranked highest after personal time. Where and when to harvest are again ranked high for information helpful to 2006 ricers. In order of preference, the preferred method for delivery of information is through web sites, pamphlets or as a section of the DNR Hunting Regulation Handbook. Other limiting factors identified in comments include the cost of the license, fuel and transportation costs, and access (to private and reservation lakes).

v Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Management Priorities

A large majority of respondents ranked water level management as the highest management priority, followed by availability of information. Seeding ranked third, while enforcement of regulations, access site improvement, and wild rice research were ranked fourth, fifth and sixth, respectively. Other comments included protection from genetically modified rice, increased habitat protection, and excessive license fees. Specific habitat protection comments included more restrictions on shoreline development, protection from motorized watercraft, prevention of the removal of wild rice through aquatic plant management permits, and more management of specific lakes that are historical wild rice lakes.

vi Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... iii

Executive Summary...... iv

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Figures...... x

Introduction...... 1 Study Purpose and Objectives ...... 1 Methods...... 1 Sampling ...... 1 Study Design ...... 1 Data Collection...... 2 Survey Instrument ...... 2 Data Entry and Analysis ...... 2 Survey Response Rate ...... 3

Section 1: Characteristics of Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters...... 4 Findings...... 4 Harvester Residency, Age and Gender ...... 4 Age Began Harvesting Wild Rice...... 4 Number of Seasons Harvested ...... 5 Introduction to Harvesting...... 6 Introducing Others to Harvesting...... 7 Licensing...... 7

Section 2: 2006 Wild Rice Harvesting Experience...... 8 Findings...... 8 2006 Harvest...... 8 2006 Harvester Satisfaction...... 9 2006 Harvest Locations ...... 10

Section 3: Regulation of Wild Rice Harvest...... 12 Findings...... 12 Harvesting Hours...... 12 Harvest Start Date ...... 13 Watercraft Width...... 14 Nonresident License...... 14

Section 4: Wild Rice Harvest Management...... 15 Findings...... 15 Harvest Limiting Factors...... 15

vii Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Harvest Information Needs...... 16 Resources to Deliver Information...... 17 Wild Rice Management Priorities...... 19

Section 5: Conclusions...... 21

References Cited ...... 23

Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter...... 24 B: Nonrespondent First Reminder Mailing Cover Letter...... 32 C: Nonrespondent Second Reminder Mailing Cover Letter...... 34 D: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Percentage Response and Number of Observations ...... 36 E: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about 2006 Harvest Experiences...... 42 F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice...... 48 G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, ...... 62 H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date ...... 75 I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase ...... 90 J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresidents 7-day License ...... 101 K: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Limiting Factors...... 111 L: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Information Needs...... 118 M: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Resources to Deliver Information ...... 125 N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities...... 130

viii Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Type of license(s) harvested under and number of people in each category, 2004- 2006...... 7

Table 2.1 Satisfaction of 2006 Wild Rice Harvester, 2007 ...... 10

Table 2.2 2006 Wild rice harvester respondents most frequently used wild rice harvesting lakes or rivers, 2007...... 10

Table 3.1 2004-2006 wild rice license holder responses to proposed regulation changes, 2007...... 12

Table 3.2 2006 wild rice licenses holder responses to proposed regulation changes by amount harvested, 2007 ...... 13

Table 4.1 Barriers of 2004-2006 wild rice license holders to harvesting wild rice, 2007 ...... 15

Table 4.2 Information that would aid 2004-2006 wild rice license holders in continuing to harvest wild rice by year of license, 2007...... 16

ix Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Age of 2004-2006 wild rice license holders, 2007 ...... 4

Figure 1.2 Age at which 2004-2006 wild rice license holders began to harvest wild rice, 2007...... 5 . Figure 1.3 Number of seasons 2004-2006 wild rice license holders have harvested wild rice, 2007...... 5

Figure 1.4 Age group of when 2004-2006 wild rice license holders began harvesting wild rice and average years of experience harvesting rice, 2007...... 6

Figure 1.5 Individual who introduced wild rice harvesting to 2004-2006 wild rice license holders, 2007...... 6

Figure2.1 Total wild rice harvester trips/county, 2006 ...... 11

Figure 4.1 Rank of information that would aid in continuing to harvest wild rice for all 2004- 2006 license holders, 2007...... 17

Figure 4.2 Rank of information that would aid in continuing to harvest wild rice for 2004- 2005 license holders, 2007...... 17

Figure 4.3 Rank of resources to deliver wild rice information for all 2004-2006 license holders, 2007...... 18

Figure 4.4 Rank of resources to deliver wild rice information for 2004-2005 license holders, 2007...... 18

Figure 4.5 Rank of resources to deliver wild rice information for 2006 harvesters, 2007...... 18

Figure 4.6 Rank of wild rice management priorities for all 2004-2006 license holders, 2007 ...... 19

Figure 4.7 Rank of wild rice management priorities for 2004-2005 license holders, 2007....19

Figure 4.8 Rank of wild rice management priorities for 2006 harvesters, 2007...... 20

x Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Introduction

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), as an agency, collects participation information on user groups. The information on user groups is collected to assess trends facing the MNDNR’s customers, and to measure its success with and needs of those user groups. Wild rice harvester license sales peaked at 16,000 in 1968, and sales are currently around 1,500 annually. The sale of state wild rice harvesting licenses has steadily decreased since the 1980’s. However, this decline does not take into account tribal permit sales as each reservation has their own license structure separate from the state. Because of the license sale decline, the MNDNR initiated a survey of state wild rice license holders to determine how it can better serve this user group.

Study Purpose and Objectives

The following objectives guided the study design and survey instrument development.

1) To determine the characteristics of wild rice harvesters in Minnesota. 2) To assess current harvest trends and harvester satisfaction. 3) To assess current natural wild rice harvest use (locations) of Minnesota lakes and rivers. 4) To obtain wild rice harvester opinions of current regulations and proposed legislative revisions to regulations. 5) To determine factors that limit wild rice harvesting, information needs of wild rice harvesters, and the best means to deliver information to harvesters. 6) To determine support for natural wild rice management priorities.

Methods

Sampling

The population of interest included all 2006 Minnesota wild rice license holders (n= 1,625). In addition, all 2004 and 2005 licensed wild rice harvesters that did not obtain permits in 2006 were sampled (n=1,101). Harvesters under the age of 16 are not required to obtain a license and are not included in this population. In total, 2,726 wild rice license holders were initially surveyed. Since 2000, all MNDNR licenses are distributed through the Electronic Licensing System (ELS). Information about each individual license holder is recorded electronically in a central database. All licenses sold via venders, the Internet or by telephone are recorded in the ELS. The contact information of licensed wild rice harvesters was drawn from this Electronic Licensing System.

Study Design

A self-administered, mail questionnaire was developed and designed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Section and Wildlife Policy and Research Group (Appendix A). The survey was administered using an

1 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

initial mailing of the survey instrument and cover letter, and two follow-up reminder mailings to nonrespondents. The use of reminder mailings can substantially increase response and reduce nonresponse bias to negligible amounts (Barnes 1946, Robinson and Agism 1951, and Eberhardt and Murray 1960).

Data Collection

The survey administration began in December 2006 and concluded in March 2007, and potential survey respondents were contacted three times. The initial questionnaire and cover letter were sent on December 13, 2006 (n=2,726; Appendix A). A reminder mailing to survey participants with valid mailing addresses and who had not replied to the initial questionnaire mailing occurred on January 19, 2007 (n=1,842: Appendix B cover letter). A second reminder and questionnaire mailing to nonrespondents occurred on March 2, 2007 (n=1,364; Appendix C cover letter). The survey instrument remained the same for all reminder mailings to nonrespondents. Margaret Dexter, MNDNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Policy and Research Group conducted survey administration.

Survey Instrument

The questionnaire for the wild rice harvesters was printed on two sides of an 11 x 17 inch paper. On one side of the paper, on the left, upper half was the mailing address of the wild rice harvester, and on the right, upper half was a self-addressed, postage-paid reply address. The other side of the paper had the questionnaire instrument. The 11 x 17 inch paper was folded in half, and then folded over into an 8.5 x 6 inch paper for mailing. A cover letter was inserted inside the folded 11 x 17 inch paper that described the purpose of the questionnaire and the importance of the license holder’s response. Each successive reminder mailing to nonrespondents had the identical survey instrument but with different cover letters. These cover letters gave an increasingly insistent appeal to complete and return the questionnaire with each reminder mailing.

The survey instrument was simple and required only check marks, numerals, lake or river names, or county names. It also included opportunities to provide written comments on several questions concerning harvesting experiences, regulation of wild rice harvest and wild rice management. Little time was needed to complete the questionnaire, which is an important factor influencing response rate (Mitchell 1939, Erdos 1957).

Data Entry and Analysis

The mail questionnaire responses were designed to accommodate computer analysis. Response codes were entered into Microsoft Access 2000 software. An Access computer search for spurious codes was conducted. Any errors found during the spurious code search were corrected. Data entry was conducted by the Brainerd Area Wildlife staff. Data analysis and initial report preparation was provided by contract services with Annette Drewes.

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The frequency of each response was tabulated. Adjusted frequencies for responses to each question are used in all tables and appendices. The

2 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

adjusted frequency was calculated by subtracting either or both the number of missing and unclear responses or the “Go to” responses, when applicable, from the total number of responses. This total was used as the denominator in calculating the percentage of responses for each item.

Survey Response Rate

Completed questionnaires were returned by 53 percent (n=1,365) of 2,574 licensed 2004, 2005, and 2006 wild rice harvesters. One hundred and fifty-two addresses were removed from the initial sample (n= 2,726) because of bad addresses, death, or change to an out-of-state address. Therefore, the deliverable sample of 2,574 wild rice license holders was obtained.

3 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Section 1: Characteristics of Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters

Findings

Results for Part A of the Minnesota wild rice harvester survey are reviewed below. The first eight items in the questionnaire sought information about the characteristics of the wild rice license holders. All 2006 wild rice license holders, and those license holders from 2004 and 2005 that did not purchase a 2006 license were asked to complete this portion of the survey.

Harvester Residency, Age and Gender

A large majority (98.4%) of survey respondents were Minnesota residents (n=1,333). Fewer than two percent were nonresidents (n=22). Eighty-two percent of respondents were male, while 18 percent were female (Appendix D).

The average age of respondent harvesters was 51 years old, with ages ranging from 16 (the age requiring a license) to 85. There were eleven wild rice 500 harvester respondents in 450 400 their 80’s. The largest 350 respondent age group was 300 250 50 year olds (n=448), 200 Number followed by 40 year olds 150 100 (n=328), and 60 year olds 50 (n=226). Overall, 81 0 percent of 2004 to 2006 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-64 65+ licensed wild rice harvester Age Group respondents were 40 years of age or older (Figure1.1). Figure 1.1 Age of 2004-2006 wild rice license holders, 2007. Those survey participants with more than 10 seasons of harvesting experience (n=509) have an average age of 56 years. Those with less than 10 seasons of experience are younger on average, but not by much, having an average age of 47.

Age Began Harvesting Wild Rice

Respondents began harvesting wild rice from 5 years of age to 79 years of age (Figure 1.2). The average at which wild rice harvesting began was 31 years of age. The most frequent ages at which harvesting began were 12 years of age (n=73), 40 years of age (n=72), 16 years of age (n=65), and 30 years of age (n=57).

4 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 1 Characteristics of Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters

When 2006 respondent age at which wild rice harvesting began is compared with harvest amounts, those 300 harvesting less than 500

250 pounds of wild rice in 2006 had a beginning 200 average age of 33 years, 150 while those harvesting

Number 100 more than 500 pounds had a beginning average 50 age of 20 years. 0 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-64 65+

Age Group

Figure 1.2. Age at which 2004-2006 wild rice license holders began to harvest wild rice, 2007.

Number of Seasons Harvested

Wild rice license holder respondents had an average of 13 seasons of experience harvesting wild rice. About half (53%) of respondents had 400 350 harvested for 10 300 seasons or less, and a 250 third (33%) had 200 harvested only one season (Figure 1.3).

Number 150 100 50 Respondents from 2006 0 who harvested 500 1-2 3-4 5-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+ pounds or more of rice Years of Wild Rice Harvesting had an average of 26 seasons of harvesting experience, while those Figure 1.3 Number of seasons 2004-2006 wild rice license holders who harvested less than have harvested wild rice, 2007. 500 pounds averaged 12 seasons of experience.

5 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 1 Characteristics of Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters

The average number of seasons of experience harvesting wild rice for 2004-2006 respondents increased

f 40 considerably the 35 younger they began 30 to harvest rice 25 (Figure 1.4), 20 particularly if that introduction began 15 Experience prior to 15 years of 10 age. 5 Average Number of Seasons o 0 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-64 65+ Age Group Began Harvesting Rice

Figure 1.4. Age group of when 2004-2006 wild rice license holders began harvesting wild rice and average years of experience harvesting rice, 2007.

Introduction to Harvesting

Almost half (47.3%) of 2004-2006 respondents were introduced to wild rice harvesting by a friend, one-fifth (21.3%) by a parent, and a few by another family member (11.8%), themselves (11%), or a spouse (5.9%) (Figure 1.5). About two percent (2.1%) of respondents acknowledged Ojibwa band members and elders, jobs, conservation officers, family, college, friends, or a self- interest in the activity as introducing them to wild 700 rice harvesting. Less than 600 one percent of 500 400 respondents were 300 introduced to harvesting Number 200 100 through a class or group. 0 10+ yrs Experience t er lf p r < 10 yrs Experience ren Se One-half (51%) of 2006 Pa Friend Othe Memb Spouse ly respondents harvesting mi Class/Grou less than 500 pounds of Fa wild rice identified a Who Introduced Them to Wild Rice Har ve s ting friend and one-third (30%) identified a parent or family member as Figure 1.5. Individual who introduced wild rice harvesting to 2004- having introduced them to 2006 wild rice license holders, 2007. wild rice harvesting. More than one-half (56%) of respondents harvesting more than 500 pounds of wild rice identified a parent or family member, and one-third (31%) identified a friend as introducing them to wild rice harvesting.

6 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 1 Characteristics of Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters

A large majority of respondents were introduced to wild rice harvesting by friends (47.3%); however, those respondents with 10 or more seasons of experience were more frequently introduced by a parent (33%) than those with less than 10 seasons (12%) (Figure 1-5).

Introducing Others to Harvesting

A majority (68.7%) of 2004-2006 wild rice license holder respondents have introduced others to gathering wild rice. The average number of people introduced to wild rice harvesting per respondent was six, with two being the most frequent answer, and the highest number being 500, from a teacher at a tribal school.

Wild rice license holder respondents who harvested over 500 pounds in 2006 were more likely (86%) than those harvesting less than 500 pounds (66%), to have introduced someone to harvesting.

Licensing

Depending on where people are Table 1.1. Type of license(s) harvested under and harvesting, the licenses required vary number of people in each category, 2004-2006. by tribal association and residency. A State Tribal Off-reservation Totals large majority of 2004-2006 wild rice X 1,163 license holder respondents harvested X X 99 rice under a state license (Table 1.1). X X 34 Some tribal areas allow harvesting of X X X 28 wild rice by non-band members, but require an on-reservation license for X 17 state residents wishing to harvest. X 6 Tribal members are more frequently X X 1 required to obtain multiple licenses based on where they plan to harvest, they are: off-reservation permit for treaty ceded lands, tribal licenses for reservation lakes, and state licenses for all others.

7 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Section 2: 2006 Wild Rice Harvesting Experience

Findings

Questionnaire respondents in Part B of the Minnesota wild rice harvester survey were asked about their 2006 wild rice harvesting experiences. All 2006 wild rice license holders, and those license holders from 2004 and 2005 that did not purchase a 2006 license completed the first question (Appendix A, Question 9) in this portion of the survey. Only 2006 wild rice harvesters completed the entire portion of Part B (Appendix A, Questions 9-11). After responding to the first question in Part B, all respondents who did not harvest wild rice in 2006 were directed to move to Part C of the questionnaire, Regulation of Wild Rice Harvest, and continue completing Part D, Wild Rice Management.

Respondents who harvested wild rice in 2006 were asked about the quantities of rice harvested in a four-part question (Appendix A, Questions 10a-10d). In the harvest quantities question, respondents were asked not to include a partner’s share in their response to prevent duplicating a partner’s response. Then participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with the 2006 wild rice season on a 5-point scale (1=very dissatisfied, 2=slightly dissatisfied, 3=neither, 4=slightly satisfied, and 5=very satisfied).

Finally, in this part, 2006 harvesters were asked to report the lake/s or stream/s where they harvested rice, the county, the number of trips per basin, and the pounds of wild rice harvested. Wild rice harvesting trips across counties was reviewed to determine where harvest is concentrated in Minnesota. The pounds of rice per lake or stream (Appendix A, Question 12) did not equal the total reported in the harvest quantity question (Appendix A, Questions 10a-10d) and were abandoned for this report; however, the remaining data were utilized to come up with information on average number of trips, lake use, and overall pressure.

2006 Harvest

Sixty-six percent (65.9%) of 2004-2006 wild rice license holder respondents harvested wild rice in 2006.

More than three-quarters (78.8%) of 2006 wild rice harvesters reported harvesting 0-500 pounds of rice, while 13 percent reported 500-1,000 pounds, 6 percent reported 1,000-2,000 pounds; and 2 percent reported harvesting more than 2,000 pounds of wild rice. The average number of pounds of wild rice harvested per respondent was estimated by taking the median number of pounds within each weight range and multiplying it by the number of respondents in each range (e.g., 250 lbs x 707 respondents) then totaling the estimated number of pounds for each range, and then dividing the grand total pounds by the all question respondents. For the 2000+ pound range, 2000 pounds was used in lieu of the median. During 2006, wild rice harvesters harvested an estimated individual average of 430 pounds.

8 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 2: 2006 Wild Rice Harvesting Experience

Only 15 percent (n=126) of 2006 wild rice harvesters reported selling all or a portion of unprocessed wild rice harvested. A large majority of harvesters (84.7%) did not sell any unprocessed wild rice. Of the respondents that sold unprocessed wild rice, the average was 768 pounds. An overall average of 117 pounds of rice was sold per 2006 wild rice harvester respondent.

More than nine out of ten 2006 wild rice harvesters (93%) had their rice processed, while only seven percent (n=59) did not have any rice processed. Those survey participants that processed rice averaged 298 pounds with an overall average of 277 pounds of rice processed per 2006 wild rice harvester respondent.

Based upon responses to the amount of wild rice kept for personal use (Appendix A, Question 10d), there appeared to be some confusion among respondents as to if the amount of wild rice processed in the previous question (Appendix A, Question 10c), was an unprocessed or processed rice weight. Because of this confusion, the amount of wild rice kept for personal use was estimated using the following method. The comprehensive responses for all questions requesting harvest quantity (Appendix A, Questions 10a-10d) were reviewed for each respondent. Each respondent was assigned an estimated percentage of wild rice kept (i.e., 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%). The estimate was based upon the number of pounds processed, and assumed an average 40 percent weight loss during processing, to evaluate the proportion of wild rice kept. Based on the above interpretation, 71 percent of 2006 harvesters reported keeping an estimated 100 percent of the rice they had processed, while 25 percent reported keeping an estimated half or less of all rice processed. This suggests that the majority of 2006 wild rice harvesters harvest for their own personal use.

2006 Harvester Satisfaction

Over three-quarters of 2006 wild rice harvesters (82.3%) reported being satisfied (slightly or very) with their general wild rice harvesting experience, with only one in ten expressing dissatisfaction (10.8%)(Table 2-1). The overall mean satisfaction score was 4.24.

One-third of 2006 harvesters (34.3%) expressed satisfaction with the July 15 wild rice season opening date, while 30.9 percent were dissatisfied (slightly or very) and 34.8 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the opening date (Table 2-1). The overall mean satisfaction score was 2.80.

Slightly over half of 2006 harvesters (56.5%) were satisfied (slightly or very) with the 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. wild rice season hours, while 31.7 percent were dissatisfied (slightly or very) (Table 2.1). The overall mean satisfaction score was 3.47.

9 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 2: 2006 Wild Rice Harvesting Experience

Table 2.1 Satisfaction of 2006 Wild Rice Harvester, 2007. About 20 percent 2006 Harvester of 2006 wild rice Very/Slightly Slightly/Very harvesters (n=207) Question Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied listed other items regarding their General Experience 10.8% 6.9% 82.3% satisfaction with (n=882) the 2006 wild rice July 15 Opening Date 30.9% 34.8% 34.3% season (see (n=878) Appendix E for 9:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. Hours 31.7% 11.8% 56.5% items listed). (n=884) Licensing issues Other – Open-ended 66.7% 14.7% 18.7% were listed most Response (n=177) often, followed by season hours and water levels. Harvesting of green rice, the July season opening, and posting of wild rice lakes were also listed. Other issues identified included: need for processor information, lack of enforcement, dissatisfaction with management, a ban on cloning or genetically modified origin rice, weather, shoreline degradation, motor boats in the rice beds, and beaver control. The overall mean satisfaction score was 2.13.

2006 Harvest Locations

A total of 3,421 trips were reported by 845 harvesters, resulting in an average trip rate of 4 trips per person to gather wild rice. Sixty percent (60%) of 2006 harvesters took three or fewer trips, while 12 harvesters (1%) managed 20 or more trips. Multiple trips were made to the same lakes, as 50 percent of those responding reported harvesting on only one lake, and an additional 28 percent reported harvesting on two lakes. The average number of lakes visited for harvesting wild rice was 1.8 across all harvesters. The maximum number of lakes visited was six.

Table 2.2 2006 Wild rice harvester respondents most During 2006, over two-thirds frequently used wild rice harvesting lakes or streams, (2,413 total trips, 70.5%) of all 2007. wild rice harvesting trips were in Rank # Trips Site County Aitkin, St. Louis, Itasca, Crow 1 185 Mallard Lake Aitkin Wing or Cass counties (See Figure 2 140 Flowage Lake Aitkin 2.1 and Appendix F, Table F.2). The next five counties with the 3 98 Big Sandy Lake Aitkin highest number of trips (698 total 4 89 Natures Lake & Popple Itasca trips, 20.4%) were Becker, River Clearwater, Beltrami, Lake and 5 78 Mississippi River Crow Wing Hubbard counties. Out of 28 6 77 Moose Lake Aitkin counties identified as being visited 7 74 Mississippi River Itasca for wild rice harvesting, these top 8 66 Breda St. Louis ten counties total 90.9 percent of all wild rice harvesting trips. 9 66 Vermillion River Itasca

10 64 Big Rice Lake St. Louis While 407 locations were

10 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 2: 2006 Wild Rice Harvesting Experience identified from the survey results to at least the county level, only 313 noted a specific name (i.e. lake name or river segment). Of these 313 locations, the top ten harvest locations based on harvest pressure (number of trips) are listed in Table 2.3. These lakes account for 27.4 percent of the total harvest pressure across the state. A further listing of the top harvesting locations representing 50 percent of total trips (32 locations) and 66 percent of total trips (64 locations) is noted in Appendix F, Table F.1. To improve the accuracy of location names noted by respondents, names were cross-referenced and edited through the use of the Minnesota Natural Wild Rice Inventory project (Minnesota DNR, 2007).

Figure 2.1 2006 Total Wild Rice Harvester Trips/County.

11 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Section 3: Regulation of Wild Rice Harvest

Findings

In this section, Part C, four proposed regulation changes were suggested and respondents were asked whether they supported these changes. All 2006 wild rice license holders, and those license holders from 2004 and 2005 that did not purchase a 2006 license were asked to complete this portion of the survey (Appendix A, Questions 13-16). Survey responses for each question are under ‘Total’ in Table 3-1. Additionally, differences in survey responses between the 2004- 2005 license holders that did not purchase a license in 2006 and 2006 license purchasers were also examined. Between license year classes there were no significant differences in the responses.

Harvesting Hours

About half (53%) of the respondents supported a change in harvesting hours to 10 a.m. to sunset (Table 3.1). There were a total of 498 comments, of which 272 were opposed to the proposed change. Of those not supporting the change in harvesting hours, at least half of the comments suggested alternative hours. However, for harvesting hours a greater percentage

Table 3-1. 2004-2006 wild rice license holder responses to proposed regulation changes, 2007. YES NO Question 2004-2005 2006 Total 2004-2005 2006 Total Harvesting Hours, 57% 50% 53% 43% 50% 47% 10 am to sunset (n=249) (n=434) (n=683) (n=188) (n=428) (n=616) (n=498 comments) Harvest Start Date. 78% 77% 77% 22% 23% 23% August 14 (n=333) (n=647) (n=980) (n=93) (n=195) (n=287) (n=552 comments) Watercraft Width, 41% 36% 38% 59% 64% 62% 38 inches wide (n=180) (n=301) (n=481) (n=259) (n=540) (n=799) (n=383 comments) Nonresident license, 33% 35% 34% 67% 65% 66% 7-days (n=142) (n=297) (n=439) (n=293) (n=549) (n=842) (n=287 comments)

of 2004-2005 only harvester respondents agreed with the regulation change than 2006 purchasers (see Appendix G for comments about harvesting hours).

Those 2006 wild rice harvesters harvesting less than 500 lbs supported the proposed hours (52%) while those harvesting more than 500 lbs did not (57%) (Table 3.2). There were 56 and 132 comments from 2004-2005 only license purchasers and 2006 purchasers, respectively, regarding

12 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 3: Regulation of Wild Rice Harvest

support for harvesting hour changes. There were 67 and 205 comments from 2004-2005 only license purchasers and 2006 purchasers, respectively that opposed harvesting hour changes (Appendix G).

Table 3-2. 2006 Wild rice licenses holder responses to proposed regulation changes by amount harvested, 2007. YES NO Question < 500 lbs > 500 lbs < 500 lbs > 500 lbs Harvesting Hours, 10 52% 43% 48% 57% am to sunset (n=356) (n=81) (n=321) (n=103)

Harvest Start Date. 78% 74% 22% 26% August 14 (n=514) (n=134) (n=145) (n=48)

Watercraft Width, 36% 35% 64% 65% 38 inches wide (n=236) (n=66) (n=415) (n=120)

Nonresident license, 37% 29% 63% 71% 7 days (n=246) (n=53) (n=418) (n=128)

Harvest Start Date

Three-fourths (77%) of the respondents supported changing the wild rice season opening from July 15 to August 14 (Table 3.1). There were no differences between license year classes (Table 3.1). This proposed change drew the most comments of all the regulation questions; there were 431 comments supporting this change and 121 opposing the change. There were no differences between license year classes in the range of comments (see Appendix H for comments about wild rice season start date).

There were no significant differences in those 2006 harvesters that harvested more than 500 pounds of wild rice and those who harvested less than 500 pounds in their support of the wild rice harvest start date (Table 3.2). There were 108 and 259 comments from 2004-2005 only purchasers and 2006 purchasers, respectively, regarding support for harvesting hour changes. There were 31 and 90 comments from 2004-2005 only purchasers and 2006 purchasers, respectively that opposed harvesting hour changes (Appendix H).

Over half the comments supporting the wild rice harvest start date of August 14 noted that the July 15 opening was too early. Many also considered the August 14 to be too early. Respondents who supported the change also believed that the later opening date would reduce individuals from harvesting green rice. Those not supporting an opening date change commented that it is illegal to harvest green rice so an opening date is meaningless. Some non- supporters believed that the later date would increase harvest pressure and increase the amount of green rice harvested.

13 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 3: Regulation of Wild Rice Harvest

Watercraft Width

More than half (64%) of questionnaire participants opposed the use of watercraft up to 38 inches wide (Table 3.1). There were no differences between license year classes (Table 3.1). Based upon the comments regarding the width of watercraft regulation, there appeared to be a lack of understanding in regard to why this change was suggested and sometimes a concern for the type of boat for which it would be applied. There was also a difference of opinion as to what are current canoe widths, especially in regards to the newer ones. The majority (n=219) of comments did not support the change, and 110 comments supported the change to watercraft up to 38 inches in width (see Appendix I for comments about use of up to 38 inch width watercraft).

There were no significant differences in those 2006 harvesters that harvested more than 500 pounds of wild rice and those who harvested less than 500 pounds in their support of wild rice harvest start date (Table 3.2). However, for the width of watercraft, a greater percentage of 2006 license purchasers were opposed to the regulation change than 2004-2005 harvesters (Table 3.1). There were 60 and 159 comments from 2004-2005 only purchasers and 2006 purchasers, respectively that opposed changing the watercraft width to 38 inches. There were 39 and 82 comments from 2004-2005 only license purchasers and 2006 purchasers, respectively that supported the watercraft width change (Appendix I).

A majority of comments against the increase in watercraft size raised concerns about damage to rice and rice beds. The comments in support of the change were primarily regarding newer boats with widths of 37 inches, and improvement of stability and safety during harvesting with wider boats.

Nonresident License

Over half (66%) of 2004-2006 only license purchasers opposed establishing a 7-day nonresident license (Table 3.1). There were no differences between license year classes (Table 3.1). Of the regulation questions, nonresident licenses received the fewest comments overall (n=257) (see Appendix J for comments regarding a 7-day nonresident license).

Respondents harvesting more than 500 pounds of rice in 2006 were more likely to oppose a 7- day nonresident license (71%) than those harvesting less than 500 pounds (63%) (Table 3.2). There were 48 and 104 comments from 2004-2005 wild rice license holders and 2006 harvesters, respectively that opposed changing the nonresidents license to 7-days. There were 30 and 78 comments from 2004-2005 only license purchasers and 2006 purchasers, respectively, that supported the nonresident license length change (Appendix J).

A majority of comments opposing the 7-day nonresident license noted concerns about nonresidents using their license for commercial purposes, and believed that residents should be allowed exclusive rights to wild rice. Those respondent comments supporting the 7-day nonresident license were interested in nonresident family and friends being able to participate, nonresident licenses helping reduce resident license fees, and lack of current harvest pressure (Appendix J).

14 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Section 4: Wild Rice Harvest Management

Findings

Four harvest management questions were asked of wild rice license holders in Part D. The questions concerned factors limiting harvest, harvest information, and wild rice management priorities (Appendix A, Questions 17-20). Participants were asked to rank their choices, with one given the highest rank.

Respondents both numerically ranked and/or used check marks to identify chosen items. To accommodate both response types, numerically ranked information is provided in charts, while summary data, based on numerical and checked responses, is highlighted in tables. The only item showing a difference in results between the two approaches was the information needs question (Appendix A, Question 18), where processor contact list, where and when to harvest all received high numbers and ranks. License year class information is provided both in a ranking chart and in the comments section for “other.”

An open-ended response option was provided for all four management questions, and comments are provided in Appendices K-N. All 2006 wild rice license purchasers, and those license holders from 2004 and 2005 that did not purchase a 2006 license were asked to complete this portion (Part D) of the survey.

Harvest Limiting Factors

Table 4.1. Barriers of 2004-2006 wild rice license holders to Among all harvesting wild rice, 2007. respondents, the 2004-2005 License 2006 License greatest barrier to Rank Respondents Respondents wild rice harvesting is #1 Time Time finding time to #2 Finding a Processor Where to harvest (2nd- tie) participate, followed nd by knowing when to #3 When to harvest When to harvest (2 -tie) harvest, knowing #4 Where to harvest Finding a Processor where to harvest, and #5 Finding a Partner Finding a Partner finding a rice #6 Physical Challenge Physical Challenge processor (Appendix #7 Financial Expense Other D). Wild rice license #8 Other Financial Expense holders from 2004 #9 Finding a Buyer None and 2005 that didn’t #10 Proper Equipment Finding a Buyer obtain a license in #11 None Proper Equipment 2006 differed by ranking finding a processor higher than 2006 harvesters (Table 4.1). The “Other” category received 230 comments (see Appendix K for other barriers to wild rice harvesting).

15 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 4: Wild Rice Harvest Management

A majority of other responses were regarding the cost of licenses. Most comments were aimed at the resident seasonal license but also mentioned were the one-day, commercial and nonresident license. Adding fuel and transportation costs made it even more prohibitive for some. Also, quality of the rice on any given year, especially the low water in 2006 made it difficult for people to gain access to rice beds or served as a disincentive. Access, also noted in the other category, was focused primarily on gaining access to private or reservation lakes. Time and other commitments was the largest factor identified for limiting people’s ability to harvest wild rice (Appendix K).

Harvest Information Needs

Overall questionnaire participants ranked having a wild rice processors list as the primary information that would help them continue to harvest wild rice, followed by information on when to harvest, and where to harvest wild rice (Figure 4-1 and Appendix D). These same items were ranked high regarding the barriers to continue wild rice harvesting, along with time as the greatest barrier. For respondents who did not harvest wild rice in 2006, information about wild rice processors ranked higher than those that harvested in 2006, and where to harvest ranked higher than the processors list for 2006 harvesters (Table 4.2).

In the ranked data (Figure 4-1), Table 4.2. Information that would aid 2004-2006 wild rice a high proportion of license holders in continuing to harvest wild rice by year of respondents utilized check license, 2007. marks (“6”) instead of a 2004-2005 License 2006 License numeric ranks. This is what Rank Respondents Respondents influenced the differences between Table 4.2 and Figure #1 When to harvest When to harvest 4-1. #2 Processor list Where to harvest #3 Where to harvest Processor list #4 Buyer list Buyer list #5 How to harvest How to harvest

16 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 4: Wild Rice Harvest Management

2004-2006 License Holder Information Needs

300

250 Processor’s List

200 Buyer’s List 150 When to Harvest Number 100 How to Harvest 50 Where to Harvest 0 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 6 Respondent Rank ("6"=check mark)

Figure 4.1. Rank of information that would aid in continuing to harvest wild rice for all 2004- 2006 license holders, 2007.

The largest number of

2004-2005 License Holder Information comments identified no need for additional information, this 120 comment came primarily from 100 Processor’s List 2006 harvesters. 80 Buyer’s List Respondents who requested 60 When to Harvest

Number other types of information 40 How to Harvest 20 Where to Harvest identified lake lists as a 0 resource, and reinforced the #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 6 desire to have more 2004-2005 Respondent Rank ("6" = check mark) information regarding when Figure 4.2 Rank of information that would aid in continuing to and where to harvest. Posting harvest wild rice for 2004-2005 license holders, 2007. was also highlighted as a means for determining when to harvest (see Appendix L for other information needs).

Resources to Deliver Information

The DNR web site was selected by responders, followed by a wild rice harvesting pamphlet, and a wild rice section in the annual DNR hunting regulations book (Figure 4.3). Responses were the same for both respondent numeric rank and selection using a check mark, and for both 2004- 2005 only license purchasers and 2006 license purchasers (Figure 4.4 and 4.5). One hundred and forty comments were provided other means to deliver information to wild rice harvesters (see Appendix M for other means to deliver information).

17 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 4: Wild Rice Harvest Management

A majority of 2004-2006 Resources to Deliver Information comments from 2004- 350 2005 license holders 300 noted web site DNR Regulations 250 resources as being Wild Rice Pamphlet 200 important, with several DNR Web Site 150 harvesters mentioning Number Classes 100 the 1854 Treaty News Release 50 Authority web site as a 0 good example. Local #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 6 newspapers and Respondent Rank ("6"=check mark) pamphlets were also suggested, with a wild Figure 4.3 Rank of resources to deliver wild rice information for all rice hotline, and 2004-2006 license holders, 2007. signage at lakes being noted. Harvesters from 2006 2004-2005 Resources to Deliver Information added that a web site should include “up to the minute” 120 information, opening dates, 100 DNR Regulations harvesting reports, water levels r 80 Wild Rice Pamphlet and aerial surveys of lakes. 60 DNR Web site Additional suggestions included Numbe 40 Classes a 1-800 number to call that 20 News Release would give local rice conditions 0 and open rice beds. Several #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 6 harvesters raised concerns of 2004-2005 Respondent Rank ("6"=check mark) over crowding if where to harvest was published, on a web Figure 4.4 Rank of resources to deliver wild rice information site or in the newspaper (see for 2004-2005 license holders, 2007.

Appendix M for other means to 2006 Resources to Deliver Information deliver information). 200 DNR Regulations 150 Wild Rice Pamphlet 100 DNR Web Site

Number Classes 50 News Release 0 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 6 2006 Respondent Rank ("6"=check mark)

Figure 4.5 Rank of resources to deliver wild rice information for 2006 harvesters, 2007.

18 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 4: Wild Rice Harvest Management

Wild Rice Management Priorities

A large majority of the respondents ranked water level management as needing the highest management priority, followed by availability of information (Figure 4-6). Seeding ranked third, while enforcement of regulations, access site 2004-2006 Wild Rice Management improvement, and wild rice research were 450 400 Enforcement ranked fourth, fifth and 350 sixth, respectively 300 Water Level Mgmt (Figure 4.6). Responses 250 Information Delivery 200 were the same across Number Research license year classes and 150 Seeding 100 Access Improvement by numeric rank and 50 check mark selection 0 (Figure 4.7 and 4.8). #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 7 2004-2006 Respondent Rank "7"=(check mark)

Figure 4.6. Rank of wild rice management priorities for all 2004-2006 license holders, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice Management Priorities

140 120 Enforcement 100 Water Level Mgmt 80 Information 60 Number Research 40 Seeding 20 Access Improvement 0 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 7 2004-2005 Respondent Rank ("7"=check mark)

Figure 4.7. Rank of wild rice management priorities for 2004-2005 license holders, 2007.

19 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 4: Wild Rice Harvest Management

Respondent provided 314 comments regarding other management priorities (see Appendix N for other wild rice management priorities). The most extensive comments concerning other management priorities were protection from genetically modified rice, increased habitat protection and excessive license fees for all respondents. In comments throughout this questionnaire harvesters do not support genetically engineered rice being grown in Minnesota. In the area of habitat protection, comments call for restrictions on shoreline development, protection from motorized watercraft, preventing removal of rice, and management of specific historical lakes as wild rice lakes. Also noted was the need for lower fees for those harvesting for personal use only.

2006 Wild Rice Management Priorities

350 300 Enforcement Water Level Mgmt 250 r 200 Information 150 Research

Numbe 100 Seeding 50 Access Improvement 0 123456 7 2006 Respondent Rank ("7"=check mark)

Figure 4.8. Rank of wild rice management priorities for 2006 harvesters, 2007.

20 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Section 5: Conclusions

Wild rice harvester license sales have declined steadily since the 1980’s. The MNDNR initiated a self administered, mail questionnaire to examine the characteristics, needs, barriers to participation, and opinions of wild rice harvester’s in the state. The results indicate that a large majority (82%) of current harvesters are 40 years of age and older. Based on the 2005 estimated population of Minnesota, 45 percent of residents are age 40 and older (U.S. Census Bureau 2006). A significantly greater proportion of wild rice harvesters than the states general population are more than 40 years old or older. As current wild rice harvesters age they are more likely to watch wildlife and less likely to participate in outdoor recreation (Minnesota Department of Administration 2006). The current age of the wild rice license holder population is a serious concern for recruitment of wild rice harvesters. On the other hand the variability in the age of initiation to harvesting lends hope to the possibilities of recruiting new harvesters at nearly any age.

In addition, based on population projections from 2005 to 2015, Minnesota’s population is projected to grow by approximately 10 percent. However, this growth will occur substantially in the Twin Cities suburbs and those areas still within the Twin Cities commuting area. By 2020, it is projected that 68 percent of Minnesota’s population will live within three metropolitan areas, they are: Twin Cities, Rochester and St. Cloud. Also, many rural counties in the state are projected to lose population in the next decade, although modest population increased are anticipated in the central lakes region of Minnesota (McMurry 2007). Since typical participants in outdoor recreation are rural residents, this population growth primarily in urban areas is also a serious concern for recruitment of wild rice harvesters.

These age and population projections highlight the need to recruit wild rice harvesters, and increase the introduction of wild rice harvesting to young people. Study results show that a majority of the respondents have introduced others to gathering wild rice. Few new harvesters were introduced by classes or courses, which reflects the few opportunities available.

The results of the questionnaire demonstrate the need to offer information about when and where to harvest, and to develop a wild rice processors list. Prospective wild rice gatherers may have an interest in gathering rice; however, without a means to process the rice they may decide not to participate because they neither have the knowledge of how to process the rice themselves nor knowledge of where to have the rice processed. This appears to be a participation barrier for those people who obtained licenses in 2004 or 2005 but did not harvest in 2006. Survey respondents noted that information on where and when to harvest should be available on the MNDNR web site, and an announcement of the web site information should be provided in the hunting regulation handbook.

A majority of the respondents supported moving the season opener to August 14. Participation by families is important as license holders with 10 or more seasons of experience were more often introduced to wild rice gathering by a parent. Survey respondents were opposed (64%) to the use of 38-inch wide watercraft and establishing a 7-day nonresident license. They were also

21 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Section 5: Conclusions divided in regard to suggested changes in harvesting hours from the current 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. to 10 a.m. to sunset.

Survey participant’s understand the need for water level management for improved wild rice production, and support the use of license fees for this type of management.

22 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

References Cited

Barnes, W.B. 1946. The sportsman’s questionnaire method of estimating the game kill in Indiana. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 11:339-347.

Eberhardt, L.L. and R.M. Murray. 1960. Estimating the kill of game animals by licensed hunters. Proc. Soc. Stat. Annual Meeting Am. Stat. Assoc. 120:182-188.

Erdos, P.L. 195/. How to get higher returns from your mail surveys. Printers Ink. 258(Feb): 30- 31.

Gillaspy, T. 2006. “Changing demographics in Minnesota: implications for natural resources and outdoor recreation.” Minnesota Department of Administration, State Demography Center. April 2006, (November 24, 2007).

McMurray, M. 2007. Minnesota Population Projections, 2005-2035. Minnesota State Demographic Center. 134 pp.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Management Section of Wildlife, 2007. Minnesota Natural Wild Rice Inventory.

Mitchell, W., Jr. 1939. Factors affecting the rate of return on mailed questionnaires. Am: Stat. Assoc. J. 34(208): 683-6 92

Robinson, R.Aand P. Agism. 1951. Making mail surveys more reliable. J. Market.15:415-424.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. “Population Estimates of Minnesota Counties by Age, 2005.” Minnesota Department of Administration, State Demographic Center, (November 24, 2007).

23 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter

24 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter

Presorted DNR DIVISION OF FISH & WILDLIFE First Class SURVEYS AND STATISTICAL SERVICES U.S. Postage BOX 20, 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD PAID ST. PAUL, MN 55155-4020 St. Paul, MN Permit #171 RETURN SEVICE REQUESTED

25 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter

Minnesota Wild Rice Harvester Survey

A. Information about you

1 Are you a Minnesota resident? ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) 2 Age: ______3 Gender: ‰ male ‰ female 4 License(s) you have harvested wild rice under (check all that apply): ‰ state ‰ tribal ‰ off-reservation permit 5 At what age did you begin harvesting wild rice? ______6 Who introduced you to wild rice harvesting? (check only one) ‰ Parent ‰ Friend ‰ Other (please specify) ‰ Family member (not a parent) ‰ Self ______‰ Spouse ‰ Organized class or group 7 Have you introduced others to wild rice harvesting? ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) If yes, how many? ______8 Total number of years you have harvested wild rice: _____ (estimate if unsure)

B. Harvesting Experience

9 Did you harvest wild rice in 2006? …………………‰ Yes ‰ No (if No, go to Question 13) 10 a. Approximately how many pounds of green/unprocessed rice did you harvest? DO NOT include your partner’s share, if applicable. ‰ 0-500 lbs. ‰ 500 – 1,000 lbs. ‰ 1,000 – 2,000 lbs. ‰ 2,000+ lbs. b. Approximately how many pounds did you sell as green/unprocessed wild rice? ______c. Approximately how many pounds did you process or have processed? ______d. Of the processed wild rice listed under c., how much did you keep for personal use? ______11 During the 2006 wild rice season, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following? (Please circle one response for each.) Very Slightly Slightly Very dissatisfied dissatisfied Neither satisfied satisfied a. General experience 1 2 3 4 5 b. July 15 opening date 1 2 3 4 5 c. 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. hours 1 2 3 4 5 d. Other (list below) 1 2 3 4 5

______

12 The location of wild rice lakes/streams you harvested on is important for purposes of ongoing and future management. Please assist us by completing the following information regarding all rice harvested under your 2006 license: waters you harvested rice on; county they’re located in; and number of trips per lake/stream.

Number of lakes/streams harvested Number (names optional) County of trips Example Irving Lake Beltrami 2

26 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter

1 2 3 4 5 6

C. Regulation of wild rice harvest The following questions deal with current season regulations and potential legislative issues.

13 Harvesting hours are currently 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Would you support a change in harvesting hours to 10 a.m. to sunset? ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) Comment?______14 Harvest of ripe wild rice can currently begin July 15. Do you support changing this start date to August 14? ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) Comment?______15 Watercraft wider than 36 inches cannot be used in harvesting wild rice under current regulations. Do you support a change allowing watercraft up to 38 inches wide? ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) Comment?______16 Nonresidents are currently restricted to purchasing one-day licenses. Do you support establishing a 7-day nonresident license? ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) Comment?______D. Wild rice management

17 What are the most important factors limiting your ability to harvest wild rice? (please check the 3 most important) ___Finding a rice processor ___Knowing where to harvest ___Time ___Finding a buyer ___Having proper equipment ___None ___Knowing when to harvest ___Physical challenge ___Financial expense ___Finding a partner ___Other:______18 Which of the following types of information would help you to continue harvesting wild rice? (please rank, with 1 being the highest) ___Processor contact list ___Buyer contact list ___ When to harvest ___How to harvest ___Where to harvest ___Other:______19 Which of the following resources would be the best way to deliver the information you identified in Q. 18? (please rank, with 1 being the highest) ___Wild rice section in annual DNR Hunting and Trapping Regulations Handbook ___Separate Wild Rice Harvesting pamphlet ___Training/Classes ___DNR web site ___News release ___Other:______20 Wild rice license sales provide funds for management. Of the management options listed below, which do you feel should be a priority? (please rank, with 1 being highest) ___Enforcement of regulations ___Seeding ___Water level management ___Access site improvement

27 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter

___Availability of information (i.e. web site, lake lists, processor info) ___Research ___Other:______

Questions should be directed to Ray Norrgard, MN DNR, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651 259-5227, [email protected] OR Annette Drewes, P.O. Box 1528, Bemidji, MN 56619, 218-368-5050, [email protected].

Please return this questionnaire as soon as possible to the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources. We have designed this form for your convenience. After you have completed the survey, fold to show our address, tape closed and mail. No postage is necessary if mailed in the United States. Thank you for your help in managing Minnesota’s wild rice resource.

28 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter

NO POSTAGE DNR DIVISION OF FISH & WILDLIFE NECESSARY SURVEYS AND STATISTICAL SERVICES BOX 20, 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD IF MAILED IN THE ST. PAUL, MN 55155-4020 UNITED STATES RETURN SEVICE REQUESTED

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 171 ST. PAUL, MN

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE Department of Natural Resources - Section of Wildlife STATE OF MINNESOTA 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD SAINT PAUL, MN 55101-9799

29 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter

November, 2006

Dear Wild Rice Permit Holder,

Our records indicate that you purchased a Minnesota license for harvesting wild rice within the past three years. Your experience and insight as a harvester are important to us in understanding current trends and practices in wild rice harvest. Attached is a short two-page survey. Information gained from this survey will be used to evaluate current harvest trends and potential legislative changes for wild rice harvest and management. When combined with research efforts currently taking place through the University of Wisconsin – Madison, Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (UW), this survey will help provide a regional view of wild rice harvest and management across Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Wild rice habitat is under increasing pressure from development, land use changes and motorized recreational activities. Over the past twenty years there has been a downward trend in license sales in Minnesota. Cooperation and commitment are essential to protecting and sustaining a continued rice harvesting culture. Please take a few minutes to complete the attached questionnaire. Return it by folding and taping so the address for the MN Department of Natural Resources is clearly visible. No postage is necessary if mailed in the United States. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Ray Norrgard (DNR) or Annette Drewes (UW). The contact information is at the end of the survey.

Thanks again for your participation in this effort to conserve a resource unique to this region!

Sincerely,

Ray Norrgard Wetland Wildlife Program Leader MN DNR 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155 651 259-5227, [email protected]

30 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix A: Survey Instrument and Initial Mailing Cover Letter

You are invited…. to create a voice for Mahnomen/Wild Rice

In February and March, 2007, harvesters from across Minnesota and Wisconsin will gather to discuss the development of a wild rice advisory circle. The purpose of this group is to create a regional network of communication and advocacy for the protection of natural wild rice and the harvesting culture it supports.

Six sessions will be held across the region. We are in the process of identifying locations and dates. If you are interested in attending and would like to be notified of the session times, please contact Annette Drewes, either by email at [email protected] or by mail at: P.O. Box 1528, Bemidji MN 56619.

Funding and support for this effort provided through the Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin – Madison and a Community Forestry Research Fellowship out of the College of Natural Resources, UC-Berkeley

31 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix B: Nonrespondent First Reminder Mailing Cover Letter

32 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix B: Nonrespondent First Reminder Mailing Cover Letter

January, 2007

Dear Wild Rice Permit Holder, REMINDER

We recently sent you a questionnaire requesting information about your wild rice harvesting experience in Minnesota. We have not yet received your response. Perhaps it was lost or damaged in the mail.

Our records indicate that you purchased a Minnesota license for harvesting wild rice within the past three years. Your experience and insight as a harvester are important to us in understanding current trends and practices in wild rice harvest. Attached is a short two-page survey. Information gained from this survey will be used to evaluate current harvest trends and potential legislative changes for wild rice harvest and management. When combined with research efforts currently taking place through the University of Wisconsin – Madison, Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (UW), this survey will help provide a regional view of wild rice harvest and management across Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Wild rice habitat is under increasing pressure from development, land use changes and motorized recreational activities. Over the past twenty years there has been a downward trend in license sales in Minnesota. Cooperation and commitment are essential to protecting and sustaining a continued rice harvesting culture. Please take a few minutes to complete the attached questionnaire. Return it by folding and taping so the address for the MN Department of Natural Resources is clearly visible. No postage is necessary if mailed in the United States. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Ray Norrgard (DNR) or Annette Drewes (UW). The contact information is at the end of the survey.

Thanks again for your participation in this effort to conserve a resource unique to this region!

Sincerely,

Ray Norrgard Wetland Wildlife Program Leader MN DNR 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155 651 259-5227, [email protected]

33 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix C: Nonrespondent Second Reminder Mailing Cover Letter

34 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix C: Nonrespondent Second Reminder Mailing Cover Letter

February, 2007

Dear Wild Rice Permit Holder, SECOND REMINDER

We recently sent you a questionnaire requesting information about your wild rice harvesting experience in Minnesota. Many surveys have been received. But we still would like your information to get an accurate picture of wild rice harvesting in Minnesota. This will be our last attempt to contact you for this survey.

Our records indicate that you purchased a Minnesota license for harvesting wild rice within the past three years. Your experience and insight as a harvester are important to us in understanding current trends and practices in wild rice harvest. Attached is a short two-page survey. Information gained from this survey will be used to evaluate current harvest trends and potential legislative changes for wild rice harvest and management. When combined with research efforts currently taking place through the University of Wisconsin – Madison, Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (UW), this survey will help provide a regional view of wild rice harvest and management across Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Wild rice habitat is under increasing pressure from development, land use changes and motorized recreational activities. Over the past twenty years there has been a downward trend in license sales in Minnesota. Cooperation and commitment are essential to protecting and sustaining a continued rice harvesting culture. Please take a few minutes to complete the attached questionnaire. Return it by folding and taping so the address for the MN Department of Natural Resources is clearly visible. No postage is necessary if mailed in the United States. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Ray Norrgard (DNR) or Annette Drewes (UW). The contact information is at the end of the survey.

Thanks again for your participation in this effort to conserve a resource unique to this region!

Sincerely,

Ray Norrgard Wetland Wildlife Program Leader MN DNR 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155 651 259-5227, [email protected]

35 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix D: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Percentage Response and Number of Observations, 2007

36 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix D: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Percentage Response and Number of Observations, 2007.

Minnesota Wild Rice Harvester Survey

A. Information about you

Q. 1 Are you a Minnesota resident? (n=1,355) ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) n=1,333 (98.4%) n=22 (1.6%) n=10 unclear or no response

Q. 2 Age: average of 50.8 years of age (n=1,345) n=20 unclear or no response

Q. 3 Gender: (n=1,355) ‰ male ‰ female n=1,114 (82.2%) n=241 (17.8%) n=10 unclear or no response

Q. 4 License(s) you have harvested wild rice under (check all that apply): ‰ state ‰ tribal ‰ off-reservation permit n=1,323 n=134 n=80 18 unclear or no response

State only – n=1,163 State and Tribal – n=99 State and Off-reservation – n=34 State, Tribal and Off-reservation –n=28 Tribal only – n=6 Tribal and Off-reservation – n=1 Off-reservation only – n=17

Q. 5 At what age did you begin harvesting wild rice? average of 31.4 (n=1,335) n=30 unclear or no response

Q. 6 Who introduced you to wild rice harvesting? (check only one) (n=1,358) ‰ Parent ‰ Friend ‰ Other (please specify) n=289 (21.3%) n=643 (47.3%) n=29 (2.1%) ‰ Family member (not a parent) ‰ Self n=160 (11.8%) n=149 (11.0%) ‰ Spouse ‰ Organized class or group n=81 (5.9%) n=7 (.5%)

Q. 7 Have you introduced others to wild rice harvesting? (n=1,344) ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) n=924 (68.7%) n=420 (31.3%) n=21 unclear or no response

If yes, how many? total of 5,643 for an average of 6.3

Q. 8 Total number of years (seasons) you have harvested wild rice: average of 13.3 years (n=1,340)

37 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix D: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Percentage Response and Number of Observations, 2007.

B. Harvesting Experience

Q. 9 Did you harvest wild rice in 2006? (n=1,360) ‰ Yes ‰ No (if No, go to Q 13) n=897 (65.9%) n=463 (34.1%) n=5 unclear or no response

Q. 10 a. Approximately how many pounds did you harvest? DO NOT include your partner’s share, if applicable. (n=897) ‰ 0-500 lbs. ‰ 500 – 1,000 lbs. ‰ 1,000 – 2,000 lbs. ‰ 2,000+ lbs. n=707 (78.8%) n=116 (12.9%) n=52 (5.8%) n=22 (2.5%) 430 lb average per respondent b. Approximately how many pounds did you sell as green/unprocessed wild rice? (n=824) 768 lb. Average of those who sold rice. n=126 (15.3%) Sold 0 lb n=698 (84.7%) 117 lb. Overall Average n=73 unclear or no response c. Approximately how many pounds did you process or have processed? (n=846) 298 lb. Average of those who processed rice. n=787 (93.0%) Processed 0 lb. n=59 (7.0%) 277 lb. Overall Average n=51 unclear or no response d. Of the processed wild rice listed under c., how much did you keep for personal use? Based on responses to Questions 10d, there appeared to be some confusion among respondents regarding if wild rice processed, in Question 10c, was a green or processed rice weight. Therefore, data for Question 10d was interpreted by looking at comprehensive responses from questions 10a-c for each respondent. The estimate was based upon the number of pounds processed, and assumed an average 40% weight loss during processing, to evaluate the response to question 10d. Based on the evaluation, a percentage of wild rice kept was assigned at 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%. Below is a summary of the estimated percentage of processed rice kept by the respondents.

25% kept - n=78 or (10.6%) 50% kept – n=107 or (14.6%) 75% kept – n=23 or (3.2%) 100% kept - n=523 or (71.5%)

Q. 11 During the 2006 wild rice season, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following? (Please circle one response for each.) Very Slightly Slightly Very dissatisfied dissatisfied Neither satisfied sat.. a. General experience 1 2 3 4 5 (n=882) 5.0% 5.8% 6.9% 24.8% 57.5%

b. July 15 opening date 1 2 3 4 5 (n=878) 22.6% 8.3% 34.8% 9.7% 24.6%

38 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix D: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Percentage Response and Number of Observations, 2007.

c. 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. hours 1 2 3 4 5 (n=884) 13.3% 18.4% 11.8% 21.1% 35.4%

d. Other (list below) 1 2 3 4 5 (n=207) 53.7% 13.0% 14.7% 3.4% 15.3% (See Appendix E for list of Other responses.)

Q. 12 The location of wild rice lakes/streams you harvested on is important for purposes of ongoing and future management. Please assist us by completing the following information regarding all rice harvested under your 2006 license: waters you harvested rice on; county they’re located in; number of trips per county; and pounds of rice (unprocessed) harvested by you. DO NOT include your partner’s share, if applicable. (n=861) n=36 unclear or no response

Number of lakes/streams harvested Number of Pounds of rice (names optional) County trips harvested Example 2- Irving and the Little Green River Beltrami 2 60 (unprocessed) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Rough count shows 861 responses that list 313 different lakes/rivers for a total of 3,151 trips. (see Appendix F for full list of lakes and trips.)

C. Regulation of wild rice harvest

The following questions deal with current season regulations and potential legislative issues regarding wild rice.

Q. 13 Harvesting hours are currently 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Would you support a change in harvesting hours to 10 a.m. to sunset? (n=1,303) ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) n=685 (52.5%) n=618 (47.5%) n=63 unclear or no response n=498 comments (see Appendix G for comments about harvesting hours.)

Q. 14 Harvest of ripe wild rice can currently begin July 15. Do you support changing this start date to August 14? ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) (n=1,271) n=982 (77.2%) n=289 (22.8%) n=94 unclear or no response n=552 comments (see Appendix H for comments about season start date.)

39 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix D: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Percentage Response and Number of Observations, 2007.

Q. 15 Watercraft wider than 36 inches cannot be used in harvesting wild rice under current regulations. Do you support a change allowing watercraft up to 38 inches wide? (n=1,281) ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) n=482 (37.6%) n=799 (62.4%) n=85 unclear or no response n=381 comments (see Appendix I for comments about watercraft width.)

Q. 16 Nonresidents are currently restricted to purchasing one-day licenses. Do you support establishing a 7-day nonresident license? (n=1,284) ‰ Yes ‰ No (check one) 440 (34.3%) 844 (65.7%) n=82 unclear or no response n=287 comments (see Appendix J for comments about nonresident licenses.)

D. Wild rice management

Q. 17 What is the biggest barrier you face to continue your harvest of wild rice? (please rank, with 1 being highest) Below is the order of #1 rankings.

#4 Finding a rice processor #3 Knowing where to harvest #9 None #8 Finding a buyer #10 Having proper equipment #1 Time #2 Knowing when to harvest #6 Physical challenge #7 Financial expense #5 Finding a partner

n=230 comments (see Appendix K for comments about barriers to harvesting.)

Q. 18 Which of the following information would help you to continue harvesting wild rice? (please rank, with 1 being the highest) Below is the order of #1 rankings.

#1 Processor contact list #4 Buyer contact list #2 When to harvest #5 How to harvest #3 Where to harvest

n=231 comments (see Appendix L for comments about information needs.)

Q. 19 Which of the following resources would be the best way to deliver the information you identified in Q. 11? (please rank, with 1 being the highest) Below is the order of #1 rankings.

#3 Wild rice section in annual DNR Hunting and Trapping Regulations Handbook #2 Separate Wild Rice Harvesting pamphlet #5 Training/Classes #1 DNR web site #4 News release

n=140 comments (see Appendix M for comments about delivering resources.)

40 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix D: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Percentage Response and Number of Observations, 2007.

Q. 20 Wild rice license sales provide funds for management. Of the management options listed below, which do you feel should be a priority? (please rank, with 1 being highest)

#4 Enforcement of regulations #3 Seeding #1 Water level management #5 Access site improvement #2 Availability of information (i.e. web site, lake lists, processor info) #6 Research

n=314 comments (see Appendix N for comments about management.)

Please return this questionnaire to the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources in the enclosed prepaid envelope. Thank you for your help in managing Minnesota’s wild rice resource. Questions should be directed to Ray Norrgard, MN DNR, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651 259-5227, [email protected] OR Annette Drewes, P.O. Box 1528, Bemidji, MN 56619, 218-368-5050, [email protected].

41 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix E: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about 2006 Harvest Experiences, 2007

42 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix E: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about 2006 Harvest Experiences, 2007

RANK 1=Very Dissatisfied 2=Dissatisfied 3=Neither 4=Slightly Satisfied 5=Very Satisfied 2006 Harvester Comments about 2006 Wild Rice Season Experiences 1. No rank noted A hell of a lot of work. 2. No rank noted I heard there were no posted hours this year. 3. No rank noted July opening date. 4. No rank noted Because of our regulations unable to get out. 5. No rank noted Water levels are low, license too high. 6. No rank noted Open daylight to dark 7. No rank noted Change 1-day license to a 2-day license (weekend). 8. No rank noted July 15th might as well be Jan. 1 or Feb. 1 9. No rank noted Lakes opening too early not ripe, rice getting beat up before it is ripe. 10. No rank noted Opening date is a little to soon. 11. No rank noted Question: why open season on July 15 when rice is not ripe until Sept. 1. 12. No rank noted Doesn't matter rice is green at this time. 13. No rank noted Water levels-amount of big leaf weed smothering. 14. No rank noted Access to some lakes and rivers in Isabella area are terrible. No rank noted Lots of elbow room most of the ricers we encountered up north were 15. very serious about their craft. 16. No rank noted Amount of big leaf weed taking over lake-water levels. 17. No rank noted Nature's way of lowering river and lake levels- couldn't get to the rice. 18. No rank noted #14- Why so early a date, seems to be much later to harvest. 19. No rank noted The DNR should not open lakes/rivers until the rice is ripe. 20. No rank noted July 15 is some early. 21. No rank noted Why can't the white man harvest on all waters. 22. No rank noted 10 - 2 23. No rank noted 9 - 4 realistic. 24. No rank noted Daylight hours after opening day. 25. No rank noted Very difficult to rice during 9-3 ricing time. How about sunrise/sunset. 26. No rank noted I wish you got a break if you bought more than a license. 27. No rank noted I'd like to have 9 -6 pm, more flexibility. 28. No rank noted Lake access. 29. No rank noted Thoughtlessness of Native Americans and their garbage at landing sites. 30. No rank noted High cost of license is backward- DNR should pay me. No rank noted What management? Of 15 lakes we scout, I have yet to see any sign of 31. DNR influence. No rank noted School staff wanted to take kids ricing after school but 3 pm closure 32. didn't allow it. 33. No rank noted The hours could be 8 to 2. No rank noted Sunrise to sunset picking hours then a person could pick if you had to 34. work. 35. No rank noted I think hours are fine, don't change them. 36. No rank noted Price for license bad. 37. No rank noted 7 am - 5 pm 38. No rank noted I'd like to see hours 9:00 - 6:00 pm. 39. No rank noted July 15 opening date means nothing No rank noted 3:00 pm close time is bad- working families only have the evenings to 40. harvest rice.

43 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix E: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about 2006 Harvest Experiences, 2007

RANK 1=Very Dissatisfied 2=Dissatisfied 3=Neither 4=Slightly Satisfied 5=Very Satisfied 2006 Harvester Comments about 2006 Wild Rice Season Experiences 41. No rank noted used rice to re-seed wetlands 42. No rank noted Increase in license fees. 43. No rank noted 8-2 hours 44. No rank noted Price of license. 45. No rank noted Rice didn't ripen until late August. 46. No rank noted Do not open until ripe. 47. No rank noted too many people in remote areas because of web site No rank noted If you have a full time job, 9-3 pm, you probably miss most of the good 48. rice. 49. No rank noted Very bad experience with one processor, excellent with another. 50. No rank noted Opened too early- people had picked green rice. 51. No rank noted If you can't harvest green rice, why does it open so early? 52. No rank noted Water was very low- hard to pole canoe. No rank noted The DNR's management of wild rice is s screwed up as anything they 53. try. 54. No rank noted Low water levels- terrific unreachable crop. 55. No rank noted Lakes were open when rice was still green. 56. No rank noted Rice doesn’t dry out till 11am or later. 57. No rank noted The opening date should be moved by 15 days (delayed). 58. No rank noted some bigger beds being harvested before they are ready. 59. No rank noted I have had lot of down rice because of bad weather 60. No rank noted Earlier hours would be more convenient for us. 61. No rank noted Thanks for asking. 62. No rank noted green rice being harvested 63. No rank noted Low water in 2006, not much rain. 64. No rank noted Hard to get to lakes, low water, lakes not posted. 65. No rank noted hrs 10-5 66. No rank noted expense of license for 2 people $52 / 40# 67. No rank noted Low water level to drought- made harvesting difficult. 68. No rank noted Low water killed us, Big rice lake, St. Louis county. 69. No rank noted I like only serious harvesters on the lake. 70. No rank noted All in all it was a good year. 71. No rank noted Ricing should be 9 to 5. 72. No rank noted Lakes seem to have rice but no water. 73. No rank noted I am very concerned about genetic modification. 74. No rank noted Start time 7am to sunset when rice is ripe and it's ready. No rank noted Because Leech lake Res stays closed until its ripe they come here and 75. take green rice. 76. No rank noted Too many people ricing green rice- storm knocked it off. 77. No rank noted lots of rice but water level low hard to pick 78. No rank noted Opener should open from 7 - 3 pm. 79. No rank noted Too many harvesting green rice. 80. No rank noted Secrets I tell no one. 81. No rank noted Never gave to much thought to the above. 82. No rank noted Water level management. Opening early 7 am - 2 pm. 83. No rank noted Rice not ripe until Aug. 15 or later and hours too short 9 - 5.

44 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix E: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about 2006 Harvest Experiences, 2007

RANK 1=Very Dissatisfied 2=Dissatisfied 3=Neither 4=Slightly Satisfied 5=Very Satisfied 2006 Harvester Comments about 2006 Wild Rice Season Experiences 84. No rank noted Hard to pole canoe due to low water. 85. 1 green rice law too vague 86. 1 Price of license is too high. 87. 1 It seems there is no enforcement on anything. 88. 1 Motorized traffic in and near rice beds. 89. 1 MN should get back water rights from Voyager's N.P 90. 1 Price of license. 91. 1 Cost of license is very high for non-commercial harvesters. 92. 1 Should have separate license for personal use and sellers. 93. 1 water level low due to beaver activity 94. 1 Illegal posting of season See Word file comments 95. 1 High horse power motors allowed on waters with wild rice. 96. 1 Cost of license for small volume ricers. 97. 1 cost for a license a lot for a 1 day season 1 tribal control of stateside lakes those that have res boundaries running 98. through them. 99. 1 Price for license for gathering for home use. 100. 1 DNR's doubling of fee- this isn't like fishing- it is very hard work! 101. 1 Many lakes I harvested 40 yrs ago no longer have rice 102. 1 $25.00 fee is outrageous. 103. 1 the lakes listed below were flooded by beaver. 104. 1 Need to know times and dates for leech lake res. posted sooner or online. 105. 1 cost of license 106. 1 Not enough time to harvest. 107. 1 cost involved 108. 1 Cost of license. 109. 1 cost of license way too high! See Word File 110. 1 Enforcement, posting of lakes 111. 1 Low water. 1 very upset to hear about the U of Ms wild rice genome project. This 112. needs to stop. 1 control of opening dates, per individual lake/river, based on ripeness 113. (ripe rice). 114. 1 Deterioration of rice beds in big rice lake, St. Louis cty. 115. 1 Cost of license is too high. 116. 1 Do not like ideal of cloning. 117. 1 Increased cost of license. 118. 1 Water levels were too low to harvest my favorite spots. 119. 1 DNR policies re big rice lake (north of Virginia). 120. 1 Quality of rice on big rice lake (St. Louis Co). 121. 1 Price of license. 122. 1 No enforcement of hours on lakes- witnessed violations. 123. 1 Landing oversight. 124. 1 Noticed green something’s on the water at Moose horn river. 125. 1 Too many people harvesting green rice. 126. 1 License fee too high- $52 for a husband/wife team is prohibitive!!

45 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix E: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about 2006 Harvest Experiences, 2007

RANK 1=Very Dissatisfied 2=Dissatisfied 3=Neither 4=Slightly Satisfied 5=Very Satisfied 2006 Harvester Comments about 2006 Wild Rice Season Experiences 127. 1 the fee of $26.00 is too much! Wisconsin is $4.00 128. 1 Water level management and seeding. 129. 1 legal nonresident options are costly & limited. 130. 1 Price of license doubled. 1 The non-posting of big beds- not knowing if a bed 150 miles away is 131. ready to pick-Vermillion- Big Sandy. 132. 1 People harvesting green unripened rice too early in year. 133. 1 The rice was too ripe. We had only one day to go. 134. 1 Motorboats running through young rice. 135. 1 Enforcement. 136. 1 Cost (increase over 2 years) of license. 137. 1 That there were no funds for beaver control. 138. 1 Poor access to some lakes. 139. 1 Speed boater wake, water levels, shore degradation. 140. 1 $30 dollar daily non-resident. 141. 1 Good lake posting. 142. 1 water levels 143. 1 Regulate lakes and dates better. 144. 1 H.S. student can't harvest during week 145. 1 Climate change-more wind, warmer days. 146. 1 Price of license 1 License unnecessarily expensive!! There is your reason why license 147. sales declined. 1 People breaking rice, no green buyers, and no protection for hand pick 148. ricer and lake rice. 149. 1 Bad wind storm cut season short in 2006, 01, 2 150. 1 Survey maps- Information on lakes- river where rice grows and amount 151. 1 One-day license fee is too high when compared with other licenses. 1 Water level management (despite drought) has caused pickerelweed to 152. flourish. 153. 1 License cost is ridiculous- there is no wild rice management. 154. 1 Water height and wind blow down. 155. 1 Sharp rise in fees. 1 The license fee is disproportionate high for the amount of (and need for) 156. state regulation. 157. 1 Low water on river and lakes. Poor season. 1 Water levels. Orr MN- No access on Vermillion and Mud due to water 158. levels. 1 DNR checking for state license. And boat registration when rice was 159. harvested on Res. 160. 1 1- About the number of carp in lakes I harvest. 161. 1 Posting opening dates on lakes. 162. 1 Water level. 163. 1 State ricers start too soon, a lot of rice is damaged before it is ripe. 164. 1 water level down 165. 2 Fee amount

46 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix E: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about 2006 Harvest Experiences, 2007

RANK 1=Very Dissatisfied 2=Dissatisfied 3=Neither 4=Slightly Satisfied 5=Very Satisfied 2006 Harvester Comments about 2006 Wild Rice Season Experiences 166. 2 Wild rice license (season) cost. 2 We were not able to harvest enough rice to process; I herd it was a less 167. productive season. 168. 2 Quality of pickers- some beat and break the stalks.! 169. 2 License fee too high. 170. 2 Cost of license is too high. 171. 2 Very low water in several places couldn't pick many places. 172. 2 Low water and gas prices were deal-killers for 2006. 173. 2 Cost of license is way too high. 174. 2 Location of rice buyers- communications. 175. 2 Wind cut season short. 176. 2 Informational assistance from MN DNR (local and state offices). 2 Inability to find a processor that will take greater 100# for personal 177. processing. 178. 2 apparent weather influence on crop 179. 2 Rice falls better earlier in the day. 180. 2 The water levels were low in some areas, making poling difficult. 181. 2 Access to processors or info on same 182. 2 Slightly dissatisfied with the price of license and early start date. 183. 3 Being my first year ever ricing. I really enjoyed the experience. 184. 3 July 15 opener seems too early 185. 4 First two weeks of September rice is ripe. 186. 4 Harvested about 1 cup full. 5 Water levels are way to high in traditional area due to beavers. Carp and 187. lily pads are problems. 188. 5 sign said Rice Lake being managed for wild rice production 189. 5 Because of the near drought, the crop was good. 190. 5 I enjoyed the rice beds. 191. 5 The green rice law- no set date by someone who opens season too early. 5 Would like to see major rice beds posted until ripe so everyone has equal 192. chance. 193. 5 Improved landings were nice (docks) 194. 5 This year was one of the best in 7 years. 195. 5 The crop. 196. 5 We had a good year. 197. 5 Regulate your rules period nobody knows what going on. 198. 5 Extend hours or 2 times, either way later in day. 199. 5 Weather 200. 5 cultural and harvesting natural food. 201. unknown shorter picking hours 202. unknown open reservation lands to all. 203. unknown carp uprooting the rice 204. unknown 9-4 would be better. I have to take vacation time. 205. unknown start at 8 am go to 3 pm it gets too hot later 206. unknown rice must be 70% ripe, end of Aug.. See word file 207. unknown too wet at 9 am open at 10 or 11

47 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Lakes and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007

48 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007.

Appendix F.1 List of Lakes and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by Rank. Total number of Location name County Lake ID trips Rank

Of 3,421 total trips reported by 845 harvesters: 27.4 % are represented in the top 10 locations (=gt 64 total trips/location) 50% are represented in the top 32 locations (=gt 24 total trips/location) 66% are represented in the top 68 lakes (=gt 12 total trips/location)

Mallard Lake Aitkin 01014900 185 1 Flowage Lake Aitkin 01006100 140 2 Big Sandy Lake Aitkin 01006200 98 3 Natures Lake & Popple River Itasca 31087700 89 4 Mississippi River (Brainerd) Crow Wing 18river 78 5 Moose Lake Aitkin 01014000 77 6 Mississippi River (Grand Rapids) Itasca 31river 74 7 Breda Lake St. Louis 69003700 66 9 Vermillion River St. Louis 69river 66 8 Big Rice Lake St. Louis 69066900 64 10 10 total locations 937 total trips or 27.4%

Lower Dean Lake Crow Wing 18018100 62 11 Stone Lake St. Louis 69004600 54 12 Bass Lake Itasca 31057600 53 13 Twenty Lake Aitkin 01008500 53 14 Sandy River Lake Aitkin 01006000 48 15 Lower Rice Lake Clearwater 15013000 44 16 Onamia Lake Mille Lacs 48000900 38 17 Moose Lake St. Louis 69079800 36 18 Shovel Lake Aitkin 01020000 36 19 Mud Lake Cass 11010000 35 20 Prairie River Aitkin 01river 34 21 Ottertail River Ottertail 56river 33 22 Rabideau Lake Beltrami 04003400 33 23 Little Rice Lake St. Louis 69061200 31 24 Prairie Lake Itasca 31005300 31 25 Whitefish Lake Crow Wing 18031000 31 26 Leech Lake Cass 11020300 27 27 Bowstring Lake & River Itasca 31081300 26 28 (Cow, Grouse and Muskrat bays) Upper Rice Lake Clearwater 15005900 25 29

49 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F.1 List of Lakes and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by Rank. Total number of Location name County Lake ID trips Rank Minnewawa Lake Aitkin 01003300 24 30 Tamarack NWR Becker NA 24 31 Winnibigoshish Lake Cass 11014700 24 32 (Rabbitt, Tamarack and Third River) 32 total locations 1,739 total trips or 50.8%

Height of Land Lake Becker 03019500 22 33 Nett Lake St. Louis 69000100 20 34 Big Fork River Itasca 31river 18 35 Lind Lake Cass 11036700 18 36 Rainy Lake St. Louis 69069400 18 37 Big Rice Lake Beltrami 04003100 18 38 Deer Lake Itasca 31034400 17 39 Lake of the Woods Lake of the Woods 39000200 17 40 Lizzie Lake Crow Wing 18041600 17 41 Mud Lake Clearwater 15006100 17 42 Wolf Lake St. Louis 69014300 17 43 Pelican Lake & River St. Louis 69084100 16 44 Clearwater River Clearwater 15river 15 45 Cramer Lake Lake 38001400 15 46 Turtle River Lake & River Beltrami 04011100 15 47 Beuber Lake Cass 11035300 14 48 Brockway Cass 11036600 14 49 Carman Lake Becker 03020900 14 50 Crow Wing Lake Hubbard 29011600 14 51 First river Itasca 31081800 14 52 Hart Lake Hubbard 29006300 14 53 St. Louis River St. Louis 69river 14 54 Campers Lake Lake 38067900 13 55 Clark Lake Lake 38067400 13 56 Manomin Lake Beltrami 04028600 13 57 Minerva Lake Clearwater 15007900 13 58 Lower Rice Clearwater 15013000 13 59 Crow Wing River Hubbard 29river 12 60 Dahler Lake Crow Wing 18020400 12 61 Elm Island Lake Aitkin 01012300 12 62 Rainy River Lake of the Woods 39river 12 63 Rice Lake (Big Fork River) Itasca 31087600 12 64 Rice Lake (Deerwood) Crow Wing 18006800 12 65 Rice Lake (Pillager) Cass 11032100 12 66 Ripple River Aitkin 01river 12 67

50 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F.1 List of Lakes and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by Rank. Total number of Location name County Lake ID trips Rank Stony Lake Lake 38066000 12 68 68 total locations 2,270 total trips or 66.3%

Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Aitkin Aitkin Lake 01004000 11 Big Sandy Lake 01006200 98 3 Blind Lake 01018800 1 Davis Lake 01007100 2 Elm Island Lake 01012300 12 Farm Island Lake 01015900 2 Flowage Lake 01006100 140 1 Little Red Horse Lake 01005200 1 Mallard Lake 01014900 185 2 Minnewawa Lake 01003300 24 Moose Lake 01014000 77 6 Newstrom Lake 01009700 5 Prairie River 01river 34 Rat House Lake 01005300 2 Rat Lake 01007700 2 Red Lake 01010700 6 Rice Lake 01000500 6 Rice River 01river 3 Ripple Lake 01014600 6 Ripple River 01river 12 Sandy River Lake 01006000 48 Savanna River 01river 3 Section Ten Lake 01011500 1 Section Twelve Lake 01012000 5 Shovel Lake 01020000 36 Sjodin Lake 01031600 6 Spirit Lake 01017800 2

51 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Terry Lake 01016200 1 Twenty Lake 01008500 53 West Lake 01028700 4 White Elk Lake 01014800 1 Basin not noted NA 81 Aitkin County Total 870 #1

Anoka Deer Lake ? 1 Hickey Lake 02009600 5 Basin not noted NA 1 Anoka County Total 7

Becker Basswood Lake 03009200 4 Big Basswood Lake 03009600 2 Blackbird Lake 03019700 4 Buffalo Lake 03035000 1 Buffalo River 03river 2 Cabin Lake 03034600 10 Carman Lake 03020900 14 Chippewa Lake 03019600 1 Dinner Lake 03004400 1 Eagen Lake 03031800 2 Egg Lake ? 10 Flat Lake 03024200 6 Gull River NA 5 Height of Land Lake 03019500 22 Hubble Pond 03024000 2 Indian Creek 03river 7 Little Basswood Lake 03009200 1 Little Round Lake 03030200 7 Lower Egg Lake 03021000 9 Mud Lake (duplicates) ? 2 Ottertail River 03river 6 Rice Lake (duplicates) 03029100 10 Rock Lake 02029300 3 Round Lake 03015500 4 Shell Lake 03010200 11 Tamarack NWR ? 24 Twin Islands Lake 03003300 2 Two Inlets 03001700 1

52 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Wild Rice River 03river 1 Wolf Lake 03010100 1 Basin not noted NA 8 Becker County Total 183 #6

Beltrami Boot Lake ? 6 Bootleg Lake 04021100 2 Carr Lake 04014100 1 Cranberry Lake 04012300 1 Grant Creek 04river 4 Heart Lake 04027100 1 Manomin Lake 04028600 13 Mississippi River 04river 11 Moose Lake 04034200 1 Peterson Lake (duplicates) ? 1 Pimushe Lake 04003200 1 Rabideau Lake 04003400 33 Big Rice Lake 04003100 18 Tagan Lake ? 2 Three Island Lake 04013400 2 Turtle River Lake 04011100 15 Whitefish Lake 04030900 2 Basin not noted NA 13 Beltrami County Total 127 #8

Carlton Dead Fish Lake 09005100 5 Hay Lake 09001000 1 Island Lake 09006000 7 Kettle Lake 09004900 8 Moose Horn River 09river 9 Rice Portage Lake 09003700 1 Sandy portage ? 1 Basin not noted NA 3 Carlton County Total 35

Cass Beuber Lake 11035300 14 Big Rice Lake 11007300 10 Boy Lake 11014300 1 Boy River 11river 2

53 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Brockway 11036600 14 Bulgen Lake ? 4 Farnham Lake 11051300 8 George Lake 11010100 3 Goose Lake 11009600 7 Gruber Lake ? 2 Inquadona Lake 11012000 1 Island Lake 11035900 8 Laura Lake 11010400 9 Leech Lake 11020300 25 Lind Lake 11036700 18 Lizzie Lake 18041600 13 Lower Trelipe Lake 11012900 2 Moose Lake 11042400 5 Mud Lake 11010000 13 Norway Lake 11030700 3 Pike River 11river 1 Pine River 11river 5 Portage Lake (duplicates) ? 5 Rice Lake (duplicates) ? 5 Rice Lake (Pillager) 11032100 12 Sandy Lake ? 4 Steamboat River 11river 1 Sucker bay ? 1 Winnibigoshish Lake 11014700 24 Woman Lake 11020100 2 Basin not noted NA 22 Cass County Total 244 #5

Chisago Carlos Avery State WMA ? 6 Elk Lake ? 2 Chisago County Total 8

Clay Cromwell Lake 14010300 2

Clearwater Bagley Lake 15004000 3 Big Rice Lake ? 10 Clearwater River 15river 15 Lone Lake 44000200 1

54 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Lower Rice Lake 15013000 44 Mahnomen Lake ? 5 Mild Lake ? 2 Minerva Lake 15007900 13 Mississippi River 15river 9 Mud Lake 15006100 17 Lower Rice Lake 15013000 13 Sucker Lake 15002000 7 Upper Rice Lake 15005900 15 Basin not noted NA 7 Clearwater County Total 161 #7

Cook Elbow Lake 16009600 5 Iron lake 16032800 1 Mark Lake 16025000 4 Marsh Lake 16048800 2 Rice Lake 16045300 1 Swamp River reservoir 16river 1 Turtle Lake 16025100 2 Vermillion River 16river 1 Basin not noted NA 1 Cook County Total 18

Crow Wing Camp Lake 18001800 1 Cartie Lake 18018900 1 Crow Wing Lake 18015500 4 Crow Wing River 18river 3 Dahler Lake 18020400 12 Duck Lake 18017800 3 Garden Lake 18032900 1 Goggle Lake 18022300 4 Google Lake 18022300 2 Half Moon (Mississippi River) 18river 1 Holt Lake 18002900 1 Little Pine Lake 18017600 6 Little Pine River 18river 2 Lizzie Lake 18017600 4 Lower Dean Lake 18018100 62 Lows Lake 18018000 4 Middle Cullen Lake 18037700 5

55 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Mississippi River 18river 78 5 Mud Lake (duplicates) ? 6 North Long Lake 18037200 1 Pine River 18river 1 Platte Lake 18008800 1 Rice Lake (duplicates) ? 7 Rice Lake (Deerwood) 18006800 12 Rice Lake (Hesitation State WMA) 18005300 10 Upper Cullen Lake 18037600 4 Whitefish Lake 18031000 30 Basin not noted NA 13 Crow Wing County Total 279 #4

Hubbard Big Mantrap Lake 29015100 3 Upper Bottle 29014800 1 Crow Wing Lake 29011600 14 Crow Wing River 29river 9 Fifth Crow Wing Lake 29009200 1 First Crow Wing River 29river 3 Fourth Crow Wing Lake 29007800 7 Garfield Lake 29006100 5 George Lake 29021600 1 Hart Lake 29006300 14 Hay Creek 29river 1 Island Lake 29025400 3 Kabekona Lake 29007500 1 Kabekona River 29river 1 Lake Alice 29028600 11 Lake George 29021600 11 Mantrap Lake 29015100 4 Mississippi River 29river 1 Necktie River 29river 2 Oak Lake 29006000 1 Rice Lake 29017700 2 Schoolcraft Lake 29021500 2 Shell River 29river 1 Sixth Crow Wing Lake 29009300 1 Spring Lake 29005400 5 Hubbard County Total 105 #10

56 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Isanti German Lake 30010000 2 Rice Creek 30river 1 Basin not noted NA 1 Isanti County Total 4

Itasca Aspen Lake 31069000 3 Bass Lake (duplicates) 31057600 53 Big Fork River 31river 18 Blackberry Lake 31021000 2 Blackwater Lake 31056100 10 Bowstring Lake 31081300 19 Bowstring River 31river 7 Crooked Lake 31020300 3 Cut Foot Sioux Lake 31085700 3 Damon Lake 31094400 1 Deer Lake 31034400 5 Deer Lake (duplicates) ? 12 Dixon Lake 31092100 3 Dora Lake 31088200 11 Drumbeater Lake ? 11 First river 31081800 14 Hale Lake (duplicates) ? 3 Little Balsam Lake ? 2 Little Pokegama Lake ? 6 Long Lake (duplicates) ? 2 Marie Lake 31050700 1 Mississippi River 31river 74 7 Moose Pond ? 1 Mud Lake (duplicates) 22 Mud lake (55-24) ? 6 Natures Lake 31087700 82 4 Otter Lake 31030100 3 Pigeon River 31river 1 Popple River 31river 7 Prairie Lake 31005300 31 Prairie River 31river 2 Rice Lake 31087600 12 Rice River 31river 1 Shimmerhorn Lake ? 1 Smith Lake (duplicates) 1

57 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Swan Lake 31006700 11 Third River 31river 9 Unnamed ? 1 White Oak Lake 31077600 10 Basin not noted NA 41 Itasca County Total 505 #3

Kanabec Ann Lake 33004000 1 Mille Lacs State WMA ? 1 Kanabec County Total 2

Koochiching Nett Lake 36000100 6 Rainy Lake 36069400 18 Rat Root Lake 36000600 9 Ray Lake ? 4 Tiltson Creek NA 1 Koochiching County Total 38

Lake Cabin Lake 38026000 4 Campers Lake 38067900 13 Clark Lake 38067400 13 Cloquet Lake 38053900 10 Cramer Lake 38001400 15 Farm Lake 38077900 2 Four-mile Lake ? 2 Garden Lake 38078200 2 Gegoka Lake 38057300 1 Greenwood Lake 38065600 3 Hoist Lake 38025100 2 Hula Lake 38072800 3 Island River Lake 38084200 6 Little Langley Lake ? 2 Middle Mcdougal Lake 38065800 2 Round Island Lake 38041700 10 Sand Lake 38073500 5 Stony Lake 38066000 12 Stony River 38river 4 Basin not noted NA 11

58 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Lake County Total 122 #9

Lake of the Woods Baudette River 39river 3 Lake of the Woods 39000200 17 Rainy River 39river 12 Silver Creek 39river 1 Winter Road River 39river 6 Lake of the Woods County Total 39

Mahnomen Mahnomen Lake ? 1

Mille Lacs Lake 10 ? 1 Mcgregor Lake ? 8 Mille Lacs State WMA ? 2 Onamia Lake 48000900 38 Onoris Lake ? 4 Whitefish Lake 48000100 1 Basin not noted NA 5 Mille Lacs County Total 59

Morrison Long Prairie River 49river 1 Peavy Lake 49000500 1 Placid Lake 49008000 1 Basin not noted NA 1 Morrison County Total 4

Otter Tail Lake Sixteen 56010000 5 Mud Lake (duplicates) ? 2 Ottertail River 56river 27 Star Lake 56038500 3 Otter Tail County Total 37

Pine Crooked Lake 58002600 5 Hay Creek 58river 5 Kettle River 58river 3

59 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Moose Horn River 58river 2 Pokegama River 58river 1 Snake river pokegama 58river 1 Willow River 58river 6 Basin not noted NA 5 Pine County Total 28

Sherburne Basin not noted NA 1

St. Louis Bear Island River NA 1 Big Rice Lake 69066900 64 10 Birch Lake 69000300 5 Breda Lake 69003700 66 8 Burntside Lake 69011800 2 Butterball Lake 69004400 1 Crane Lake 69061600 1 Embarrass River 69river 1 Hay Lake 69041700 6 Hockey Lake 69084900 1 Hoodoo Lake 69080200 3 Knuckey Lake ? 8 Lake George 690040 1 Little Indian Soo River 69river 1 Little Moose Lake ? 5 Little Rice Lake (duplicates) 69061200 31 Little Stony Lake 69002800 4 Little Vermillion Lake 69060800 1 Lost Lake (duplicates) ? 1 Low Lake 69007000 2 Moose Lake (duplicates) 69079800 36 Mud Lake 69080000 1 Nina-Moose River 69river 3 Nuke Lake ? 3 Pelcan Lake 69084100 2 Pelican Lake 69084100 9 Pelican River 69river 5 Petrel Creek 69river 3 Pike River 69river 8 Reba Lake ? 4 Rice Lake (duplicates) ? 5

60 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix F: Wild Rice Harvester Survey 2006 List of Rivers and Lakes Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice, 2007. Appendix F-2: List of Lake and Rivers Utilized for Harvesting Wild Rice in 2006, by County. DNR Dept. of County Name Waters Lake Total # Lake County Lake Namea Identificationb Trips Rank Rank

Rice lake (by Biwabik) ? 2 Seven Beaver Lake 69000200 3 Shannon Lake 69092500 2 Shannon River 69river 3 Sioux River 69river 2 St. Louis River 69river 14 Stone Lake (duplicates) 69004600 54 Vermillion River 69river 66 9 Washhusk Lake ? 1 Wolf Lake (duplicates) ? 17 Basin not noted NA 47 St. Louis County Total 515 #2

Stearns Mud Lake (duplicates) ? 1

Todd Big Rice Lake ? 1 Long Lake 77006900 1 Long Prairie River 77river 2 Mud Lake 77008700 1 Rice Lake 77007300 2 Rogers Lake 77007300 1 Turtle Creek 77river 1 Basin not noted NA 1 Todd County Total 10

Wadena Crow Wing River 81river 5 Myrtles inlet ? 8 Twin Lake ? 1 Basin not noted 6 Wadena County Total 20

a Duplicates = There is more than one lake in the county with the same name. b NA = Department of Waters number not available.

“?” = Department of Waters number unknown

61 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007

62 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

1. a good sustainable harvest should be possible w/ current hours. 2. 3:00 allows time to get rice to a seller/processor. 3. Not sure that would hurt future yields or not. 4. 10 am is too late to start- 6 hours is long enough for such hard work. 5. 6 hrs is enough (maybe 10 - 4 to let rice dry) ducks need peace at sunset. 6. There are too many people who would have longer to beat down green rice plants. 7. People beat up rice beds already by harvesting green rice to soon. 8. 10 am to 3 pm would be better, it falls better then. 9. 10:00 am-3:00 pm 10. 6 hours is plenty of time and that leaves the rice some time to recover. 11. Support 8:00 - 2:00. 12. Give rice a chance to ripen after 3 pm to next day. 13. Too much destruction of rice beds with that many hours. 14. Don’t over harvest. 15. Wildlife needs access and quiet time. 16. 9 a.m. to sunset. 17. I am an early riser and I have to work in the evenings. 18. Either way would be ok later in the day there is less wind. 19. 6 hours is long enough 20. What will be the risks from boats to birds running through them in the dark. 21. 9 to 4. 22. Maybe 9am - 5pm Interfere with resting waterfowl in wild rice areas with sunset. 23. 9 to 3 allows a leisurely day, without beating the competition. 24. 10 - 5 pm 25. Could be longer but not until sunset. 26. Too short a day. 27. 9 - 5 was better/still time to get off of lake before dark. 28. Shorter hours are better for the rice paddy 29. There appears to be no reason to have hours for harvesting. 30. Rice beds need to rest and ripen. 31. Wild rice should not be picked that many hours in a day. It should be picked according to ripeness. 32. too difficult to find your way back in the dark! 33. The current hours weed out some people, it's nice. 34. it gives the rice a chance to ripen more 35. 9:00 am to 12:00 or 10 to 1:00 so rice bed is not destroyed. 36. Should start earlier in the day. 37. 10:00 - 6 pm. I don't think it should be S.S. for numerous reasons. 38. Too long 39. Moving off harvest areas and packing-up in darkness. 40. Although it seems like some ricers don't honor it anyway. 41. Hours are long enough. 42. 9 am to sunset would be better. 43. Longer hours.

63 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

44. Better to have some light after ricing to see by. 45. Afternoon ripening is substantial (noticeable) 46. Hours are fine. 47. Longer hours would only give a couple of greedy locals more time to rape the lakes and leave less for the rest of us. 48. Current hours are fine. 49. Too much damage to crop- should go back to the 70's regulation. Doesn't have a chance to recover for the next day. 50. Need the hrs. 51. current hours are fine. 52. I think the rice needs some time protection. 53. 9 am is a good start time. 54. We only riced until 1:30 each day, very hot out, riced at our own pace. 55. Earlier if anything. 56. 9 am to 3 pm is long enough. 57. 8-3 pm 58. There is plenty of rice and no one harvesting it. 59. The guys (CO's) need daylight to check stuff correctly. 60. It would be best by the end of the 1st day. 10 to sunset too long. 61. let the plants recover 62. People will screw themselves up staying out too late. 63. people would be out after dark 64. 10am to 4pm, rice needs to dry from dew in early morning. 65. harvest is easier to monitor at 9-3 66. Rice ripens different on each lake. When it is ripe, open up sun-up till sundown. 5 am to 9 pm

67. no need to change

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

68. It gets to warm in afternoon hours. 69. Maybe 10 am - 4 pm to give more afternoon hours when I think the rice falls off easier, but 10- 70. Hard to do other things with night. 71. like to start early 72. I would rather start earlier than stay late. 73. Time is long enough. 74. I would like to start at 8 am, while it is still cool. 75. The rice beds need time to rest. 76. I want to see the hours changed to 10:00 am to 5:00 pm. 77. Longer than 6 hrs would be hard on the bed. 78. 7 am to 3 pm 79. Later would mean a mess, right now everyone cleans. 80. Hours 9 am to 3 pm are fair to everyone, including enforcement. 81. Rice may be wasted if harvested in late afternoon.

64 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

82. I would support sunrise to 3:00 hrs. 83. Just fine. 84. Disturbs wildlife- waterfowl. 85. Earlier in the day is cooler for harvesters, and the rice comes off better. 86. Hours should be 7 am to noon to avoid heat stroke/stress. 87. May interfere with other types of harvest. 88. why - 6 hrs is plenty 89. Earlier is better. 90. The rice beds need time to rest after being picked. 91. Maybe 8 am to 3 or 4 pm. 92. Birds, etc. want into the rice beds at sunset- don't bother them. 93. Lazy people hours/rice falls in the morning. 94. For one it’s a safety thing, if someone tips, would get dark to soon if sunset. 95. start earlier 96. Earlier better, lees wind and cooler usually. 97. 9-3 is perfect for us who travel 98. 9 am to 6 or 7 due to increase of moisture after 7 pm. 99. first year seemed ok 100. Times are good, cuts down on waterfowl disturbance. 101. The rice needs time to ripen. 102. First 2 days 3 hrs, first Sunday off. 103. Nicer to do in cooler part of day no need for longer day. 104. It should be sun up till sun down. 105. I'd prefer 9 - 6. 106. Such long hours would deplete lakes too quickly. 107. Start at sunrise to sunset 108. Traveling time to location- must start early and waterfowl seem up and moving by 9. 109. I'd rather start earlier before the wind picks up. 110. It's long enough its hard work. 111. 9-3 is good. 112. 8 am - 2 pm better. 113. 9-3 is plenty. 114. Ducks can feed better early and late in the day. 115. I prefer harvesting earlier in the day when it is cooler. 116. 6 hours (9-3) is about right. 117. I get tired and it makes it more fare to rest and go back. 118. the pressure on ripening beds would be too great and damaging. 119. lakes would not have time to recover for the next day. 120. 4 hours is plenty of time to get what we need. 121. 9 is fine. Helps beat the heat of the day. 122. crop needs time to ripen. 123. 3 pm is fine. Gives bed time to recover for next day. 124. I'd rather start earlier - say - 7 am - 3 pm. 125. the pressure on ripening beds would be too great and damaging. 126. The beds will get wiped out.

65 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

127. give ducks and other wildlife a quiet period during evening. Suggest 9-6 pm 128. 9 am to 5 pm 129. we have been told by experienced folks earlier is better. 130. I feel the harvesting hours are just about right. This type of change could promote more intensive harvest and not allow the rice to 'comb out' between picking days. 131. 6 hrs plenty of time of hard work. Gives rice time to stand up. 132. are good as is. 133. like to start early - 9 am could even be earlier (8:30). Ending time later okay. 134. I'm very tired by 3 and its good to "have" to stop 135. crop needs to ripen 136. 10 am to 3 pm recommend not past 3 pm 137. 10 - 4 138. 7:30 am start. To get away from the heat 139. see comments word file 140. you would be disturbing feeding of ducks by late ricing 141. why not sunrise to sunset? 142. 1. The shorter hours protect the rice and were set for a reason. 2. Enforcement at/after sunset= money= higher license fees. 143. I like it. 144. 9 to sunset. 145. it gets to hot later in the day. 146. I think 8 - 7 am start finish earlier in day due to heat. 147. Not needed. 148. Earlier is better to beat the heat. 149. It's to many hours and it doesn’t give waterfowl and rats etc. to settle back in for the night. 150. I would like an earlier opening-8 a.m. less wind, cooler, and fewer bugs. Going to sunset might be okay for people who work during the day (8-4) An 8 hr day is long enough. 151. 6 hrs is enough for my needs. 152. 6 hrs/day is enough. Early morning is often less windy 153. why would you consider lengthening the hours? I am always glad when 3 pm comes! 154. 5 hour picking day I would support 155. 6 hours of ricing is plenty- it's hard work. 156. It's long enough 157. It is cooler at 9 a.m. go to sunset if you …[survey cut off] 158. I'd rather it went from 8 am to 4 pm. 159. Daylight hours for everyone. 160. 7 or 8 am - sunset. 161. How about 9 am to sunset. 162. I would like 8 am to noon. 163. I would support extended hours, but not moving the start time back. 164. As more people learn the pleasure of wild ricing-6 hours is enough time to rice out a lake. 165. would like 8 am to 4 pm 166. fine the way it is 167. Daylight to 3 pm or sunset.

66 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

168. 6 hrs is long enough, get tired. The only reason for changing hours would be to accommodate people with day jobs. 169. I prefer the current hours- it lets more rice ripen for the next day, and 6 hrs/day is my body. I think the rice beds would get too beat up enough for 4 hours were 10-sunset. Also, it’s nice to get out 170. I need to complete ricing earlier. Have other duties. 171. This is time enough. 172. Afternoons get too hot. 173. That's too long. 174. I'd rather start early, before it's too hot, 6 hours is long enough! 175. Potential safety issues if you have people with loaded canoes after dark. 176. 9 to 4 pm 177. It would be nice to work in the morning before it gets hot. 178. Start 7am to sunset. 179. More than enough time now. 180. Prefer a 8 am start. Cooler and less wind. 181. 9 to 4. 182. I like 9-3 and not out in the dark on the water. 183. The rice gets beat up when more people are out longer. 184. The rice needs some recovery/ripening time a harvest day (9-3). 185. Ricing gets harder as day gets hotter- Better if 8 - 2 pm. 186. Should be open all day, everyday once season is opened. 187. Takes a day anyway. 188. Like it as is. 189. I would favor the hours of 10:00 until 2:00 190. 10 to 4 enforceable and human limit. 191. Stands would get pounded down quickly. 192. Current hours are fine. 193. You don't need more hours just better hours (let the rice ripen) 194. Hours are fine. 195. Should be sun-up to sundown. 196. Too much for the patches rice 6 hours is long enough. (shorter hours) 197. I would prefer any time. 198. 6 hours is enough- give beds time to ripen- rice will get completely pounded if open from 10 am to sunset. 199. 6am to 12. 200. I am in good shape and I was very tired at the end (3:00). 201. Normally less wind in early mornings. 202. We must allow early and late for ducks, wildlife. 203. It's enough work as it is. 204. The bed needs to recover. 205. Should start at daylight, lake afternoon rice doesn't fall very good. 206. Ricing that late could be dangerous. 207. 6 hrs is enough for me 208. 8am to 2pm would be better, because it gets hot. 209. Why not all day? Afternoon sun is brutal. 210. Too hot doesn't fall that good- better in morning.

67 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

211. Rice needs to rest. 212. I would rather see it. 8am to 4pm. 213. Beds are already over harvested. 214. Start early, quit early. Less wind and cooler. 215. Early morning is better because it's cooler. 216. Would be printed out, Indians harvest anytime they want now! 217. Indians go when they want already. 218. I have never heard reason behind them. Later afternoon hours would be nice but not at the expense of an early a.m. start. I need to know the reason for a change to support it. 219. 8 to 4 pm- days are long, greed would ensue! 220. 8 - 2 would be best in order to beat the high temp. in afternoon. 221. I think the 9a to 3p limit protects the patties. 222. See attached #1. 223. Harvesting rice, harvests better in early morning hours. 224. Would be ok to sunset, just would prefer earlier morning. 225. 7 to sunset because the rice tighten up in the afternoon. 226. All day ricing shouldn't be allowed. 227. earlier is better. 228. Earlier. 229. 6 hours is enough. 230. 7 am - sunset let us avoid heat stroke! 231. Picking is better in early morning. 232. Current hours give plenty daylight on and off lake/stream. 233. Ducks need time without people. 234. 6am to 1pm 235. At sunset, people are more likely to harvest non-ripe rice by mistake. 236. 3 is fine time to quit. 237. I like it as it is. 238. Some take 500# in 6 hours- too much damage would like 4-hour days. 239. 10 - 2 none going to get rich. 240. 7am to sunset. 241. Maybe till 4 or 5 pm. 242. Hours are good. 243. I like afternoon for rail hunting. 244. Maybe until 5:00 pm. Remoteness= less safe after dark. 245. Rice seems to come off better in morning. 246. 10 - 5 rice would be dry in the am- stop at 5 pm to allow rest time for the rice. 247. If you spend too much time on a lake you will ruin the rice for the next day. 248. The "average" ricer wouldn't have a chance to get rice. 249. Everybody knows when 3 pm is, but nobody seems to know when sunset is. (enforcement 250. 6 hrs a day is plenty of time to fill your canoe. 251. I'd rather start earlier than stay later. Bag rice in daylight. 252. 9 am to sunset would allow working people to pick. 253. The rice needs a rest. Even 9 am to 2 pm would be ok. 254. One group of people could damage the crop for others.

68 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

255. I like to start early. By 4 or 5 I'm tired. 256. Nice to rice in am when cooler. Get off lake in light. 257. I even liked every other day 4-6 hours. 258. 6 hours is enough. More would do too much damage to crop. 259. Why 10 am, why any restrictions. 260. It is too hot in the afternoon. 261. Leave like it is. 262. 9-3 works fine, why not allow beds time to recoup? 263. am hours are better and need to allow ducks to settle in the pm. 264. A lot of time needs to be spent unloading and picking through rice. Sunset too late. 265. 9 am to 4 pm. 266. Greed! 267. Wind is greater as day gets later (most rice harvested in first 2 hours. 268. The later the start the dryer the rice the more that falls in lake. 269. Shift to 10 am means we would lose 1 hour during coolest part of the day. 270. Dawn to dusk. Rice fall better in a.m. 271. 10 am to 6 pm would be ok. Sunset is probably too many hours. 272. Rice picks better in the morning dew.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Support Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

273. By why not earlier in the day 7 - 10. 274. Provides more time to move to another site if first site is to busy or already harvested. 275. This would be great as work will not allow many of us to harvest during these "bankers" hours.

276. So little pressure in way of pickers 10 to sunset would fit most lakes. 277. I usually travel quite a distance to rice. 278. Could be 7am to sunset. 279. many people drive considerable distances extended hours more convenient. 280. This would give us more time for breakfast and make lunch and travel. 281. Good idea if buyers ok with it. 282. The dew needs to dry. 283. Unless this depletes the rice crop. 284. It gives everyone a better chance of going. 285. I would enjoy evening harvest- but only if the extended hours are safe for the rice. 286. You should consult Native American elders of the region. 287. I would love to see this change, you hear the needs for this. 288. Keep 9 am open- change close to sunset. 289. I work from 8-5 6 days a week, this would give a chance to rice. 290. Weather would play a part (daylight to dark-best). 291. Could rice after work. 292. beds are thin near Lutsen - need more time not more trips 293. Closing at 3 pm is too soon for all those with jobs. 294. Too much is lost by wind and storms with short hours.

69 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Support Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

295. You can take your time and not beat green rice. 296. People who work can pick when rice is ready, not wait for weekends. 297. Keep at 9:00 am, go to 60 Min. before sunset (for waterfowl). 298. 8 or 9 a.m. to sunset would be better. 299. rice drops off better in afternoon lets the few ricers left maximize yield. 300. an evening harvest would be nice, to go out after work instead of missing work 301. makes more sense when all you have is a few days 302. this change may make it easier for more people to be able to harvest rice. 303. More time for dew to burn off. 304. I think this is a big improvement on time as the rice is drier. 305. Definitely, balancing work and ricing is difficult; would use a vacation day if day ricing was longer. 306. Hours should be 3 to 4 hrs longer. 307. Why not make a full day of it. Time, travel, etc. 308. sounds good, be able to rice longer. 309. I work during the day 7 to 3, have a few hours to rice. 310. the difference between the 2 is minimal to me. 311. People around here are doing it already! (not me- irritating). 312. Preparations- less humidity for drier picking in the afternoon. 313. not a strong preference 314. 9:00 am 1 hour prior to sunset. 315. Due to conflicts with work hours. 316. Because of the hot sunny days- (heat stroke). 317. It's to find time with that short of a period of time. 318. After July 18 or 3 days after opening. 319. This would be awesome, the hours are short. 320. Why such a late start. 321. For someone working during the day, it's hard to pick much. 322. If biologically feasible. 323. It wouldn't matter to me- I don't know reasons for change. 324. I portage into a remote area and would appreciate the entire hours for ricing. 325. If the resource can be properly protected. 326. Prefer 9 to sunset 327. Do we need times? Nobody's ricing! Better to have some time other than the middle of the day.

328. But why not sunrise to sunset?

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Support Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

329. 6 hrs/day is not enough time when your time is limited. 330. Nice to have more pm time. 331. The six hours was enough for harvesting for personal use. A few more hours per day would be good. 332. we travel a long way, camp. 10-5, rice comes off better! 333. On a windy day later in the day the wind subsides.

70 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Support Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

334. The dew is off by then. 335. I would like to see hours 9 am to sunset. 336. It is sometimes pretty wet at 9:00 A.M. 337. hard to harvest much if you have a day job 338. please 339. maybe 10-4 instead. I feel a bit mixed on hrs. I like the tradition and keeping lakes from being over harvested. 340. I could rice after work/school with my son. I think a fixed time would be better than sunset- 6:30 pm close. 341. Absolutely! The best simple change you could make. 342. It would enable me to rice after work on weekdays. 343. with this change a person could harvest after work. 344. It would be nice not to hurry! 345. Rice is wet in the morning. Comes off better in afternoon. 346. good to let morning dew dry off rice – would allow an additional hour. 347. Daylight hours after opening day. 348. Cannot always get out until afternoon. 349. Rice doesn’t dry out till 11am or later (wet rice don’t fall). 350. like this proposal a lot! 351. longer hours would not adversely affect the rice beds due to small numbers of ricers 352. not a big issue to me 353. Yes, I think it would be good to let rice dry more in the morning. 354. At current harvest pressure, this seems ok. 355. not sure, rice might be drier. 356. with work it hard to get out, 60 miles closest rice. 357. Strongly agree this would give school students time. 358. Absolutely!! The rice is usually still too wet to pick at 9:00am. 359. More time on the nice days. 360. Damp days rice seems to fall later in the day. 361. not very concerned with the hours. 362. sun rise to sunset 363. Season can be cut short- weather allow for longer harvest time. 364. How about sunrise to ? A lot cooler in morning. 365. Rice falls better as the sun dries the rice. 366. People could go out after work in the evening. 367. I would like seeing 8am to sunset. 368. rice is dryer in the evening. People beat harder in the mornings 369. 10 to 5 sun days. Windy days late yes. 370. It would be nice to rice for a couple of hours after work. 371. it is easier to harvest after school/work and sunset would help that. 372. fine as is 373. 10 – 5 374. Expand hours w/b very good. 375. 9 to sunset. 376. But would prefer an 8 A.M. opener or sooner-cooler.

71 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Support Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

377. Opening time window will give people more flexibility when to harvest. 378. Day shift workers can’t rice 9 – 3. 379. Good idea since rice can cling tight to head in early morning. 380. I would actually like to see the hours extended even further. 381. More flexibility for working people. 382. So we can take our time. 383. or a 9 – 5 pm harvesting hours. 384. Wouldn’t make much difference to me either way. 385. It will be nice to have more time in am to get onto some of the more remote beds. 386. As you get older it takes longer. 387. A 10 am start the rice would not be as damp. 388. Fits work schedule better. 389. I think a later closing would give more opportunity. 390. Should be 9 to sunset. 391. Good plan- the rice comes off easier when the morning sun dries it. 392. Either is ok (as is or change). 393. Working man can’t harvest unless he is on the weekend. 394. Would allow harvesters to take break during heat of day. 395. 9 – 3 doesn’t make sense. 396. I think you should start at 7 – sunset. 397. Rice comes off better early in the morning when dew is still on. Start time at sunrise would be 398. If later in fall. To rice after work. 399. Not time to get to some places as is. 400. Afternoon the rice falls better with less stress to plants. 401. To sunset would be excellent. 402. Maybe 9 am to 6 pm. 403. I don’t understand the impact of harvesting hours. 404. Prefer 9 am to sunset. 405. This would allow me to go after work. Also rice comes off better after the dew has dried off, so 10 am is reasonable. 406. Afternoon winds bad, but sunset is romantic. 407. This would allow someone with a job to go rice after work. 408. But it doesn’t really matter too much. 409. It probably wouldn’t change the amount of time spent on the water because you get tired out after so long anyway. 410. The rice is usually too wet at 9:00 am and great at 4-5 pm. 411. This works much better for people going out after work. 412. Doesn’t matter to me. 413. The later end time would allow us to take kids after school. 414. 9 to sunset. 415. Would allow opportunity for school kids. 416. Yes, very much- this is the biggest limiting factor. Working families only have the evenings to 417. 10:00 am gives rice more drying from heavy moving dew. 418. If the rice is ripe. 419. Yes and no, 10 to 6 would be right. Plus it would be hard to regulate 10 to sunset.

72 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Support Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

420. Only if the hours would be regulated to even., other day during start of season. 421. Before dark. 422. Why not 9 am to sunset? The window to harvest is very short anyway. 423. 10-6 would be good for many. 424. The rice always falls better in the afternoon. 425. Would give more flexibility to change lakes if harvest is poor. 426. 8 a.m. to sunset would be better. 6 hrs is enough but on hot days, morning & evening picking 427. This would help out greatly. 428. 3:00 pm closure way to early – families only have time to pick in evenings. 429. For a working person 3 pm sucks. 430. no time limit 431. As long as harvesting time is longer. (9-sunset) would be great. 432. Evenings would be nice. 433. I like the 10:00 hrs part with longer hours; not sure all the way to sunset. 434. With these hours, people like me who work during the day are only able to rice on days off for me this means weekends only! This doesn’t seem right. 435. 10 am start is much better, less damage due to drier conditions. Would not have to be until sunset. Early season 6 hrs is long enough. Most important change is to start later. 436. It’s hard to travel/scout by 9 am- but I would defer to those who care take. 437. If one has to travel a considerable distance, it would be economically helpful to be able to harvest more rice. 438. Easiest to keep time. 439. A later start and longer hours would be more laid back. 440. There’s no reason not to. 441. If rice is ripe what difference does it make. 442. Can rice harvest after workday. 443. I would like to be able to harvest a little each day instead of only on weekends. If you work during the day, this rule means weekends only. 444. Would allow someone working to get out after work. 445. This shouldn’t matter. The rice days around 9:00- it would be better to go later. 446. More flexibility for working people. 447. More available hours make more options available. 448. How about 10 am to 5 or 6 pm? 449. Seems more likely to be harvesting day rice? 450. Even 10 a.m. to 6 or 7 pm. Might be better enforcement than sunset. 451. I prefer the afternoon times. 452. This would be great. 453. Some situations, getting there takes up all the time. 454. Rice falls better after noon. 455. That would be the best hours. 456. Some days it’s to hot to be out there from 9-3. 457. It would be better if opened at 12. 458. The day we went was very warm. Later in the day would have worked out nice. 459. Either 460. Sunrise to sunset.

73 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix G: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Hours, 2007.

2004-2006 Wild Rice License Holder and Oppose Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset 461. 9 to sunset. 462. Don't know- would it risk putting too much pressure on lakes and rivers? 463. Start earlier before the wind picks up. 8 - 3 464. makes no difference 465. No preference. 466. I am not fully informed about the importance of starting and closing time. 467. Doesn't make any difference to me. 468. Don't know whatever protects the crop and the little guy. 469. Not sure 470. Not sure. 471. no comment 472. 9-3 should remain. 473. time is good as is - it gives time to get off lake in light 474. 8 am to 5 pm like it was when I started.

2004-2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Support Change in Harvesting Hours to 10 a.m. to sunset

475. Why change the hours? 476. Maybe. 477. no opinion 478. 9 - 5 479. For my use 9 to 3 is fine, but for cash harvesters may want more. 480. Yes, because serious ricers don't need a limit, no because limits stop the stupid people. 481. Not enough experience to comment 482. need to be educated more to answer this question. 483. Doesn't matter. 484. Why? 485. Doesn't matter hours are fine. 486. Doesn't matter 487. Don't care 488. I like the current hours but I am not fully educated on pros and cons of either time. 489. 9 - 5 would be great. 490. 10 - 4 maybe- sometimes dew is very heavy at 9:00. 491. Neither, let some other entity decide. 492. I do so little ricing that I'm not sure of impact. 493. Don't matter. 494. why-6 hrs kicks my @#* 495. does not matter 496. 10 to 4 497. 9 to 3 is just fine for me- I have no opinion on other options. 498. No opinion

74 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007

75 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Harvest Date to August 14

1. Wild rice should only be harvested when ripe. 2. Should be able to harvest when ripe. 3. Should be when rice is deemed ripe. 4. Every year id different for ripe rice. 5. Seems rice was dropping by 8/14 in 2005 season in some areas. 6. it matures earlier in the north 7. August 30. July 15 is way too soon for wild rice to be ripe. 8. Rice not ripe. 9. Ripe is key word if it is ripe by 7/15 ok or it will all go back in water 10. Legally, rice cannot be harvested until ripe. 11. why change. When it's ripe it's ripe and everyone starts at the same time. The later date only gives tribes 1st 12. chance. 13. Major storm will wipe out harvest. 14. Make it August 1st due to different weather conditions. 15. Why change if don't harvest green wild rice. 16. Leave in flexibility for early ripening harvest. 17. too late. Each area is individual 18. Should open when first river ripens. 19. Global warming effecting harvest. 20. Varies between locations. 21. When ripe. 22. Possible upsetting the balance of nature. 23. Rice isn't usually ripe until around 1st or so. I support changing the date to when it is ripe. So the date cannot be set in stone. It depends on 24. the weather and nature to determine the optimal date. 25. leave it alone 26. Hard to predict ripeness. 27. Why do we need a season when only ripe rice can be harvested? 28. Some years it’s ripe before August 14. 29. Those harvesting know when it’s ripe. 30. When rice is ripe- harvest it. However 95% is after August 14 anyway. 31. No lake should open before its ripe enough. Rivers ripen early.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Harvest Date to August 14

32. Why bother? 33. Leave it to the ricers to wait for good rice. 34. Too much pressure on opening day- lots of lakes still green. 35. Would support changing to Aug. 7. Things can ripen rapidly depending on growing season. 36. You can't pick unripe rice anyway. 37. Let people go and check to see if its ready. 38. August 1 would be soon enough.

76 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Harvest Date to August 14

39. seems to vary too much to change. 40. I like being able to harvest when ripe. 41. We know when it’s ripe, we watch it. 42. We only pick ripe rice - so not much of an issue - doesn't get ripe until later. 43. It may be ripe before August 14th. 44. get closer to old problem of regulation opening. 45. Pick when ripe. Aug. 14th is usually on target but I have seen it ripe earlier. Wind and storms could harm them. 46. 47. No big deal, rice generally never ripe till middle of August anyway. 48. Some lakes and rice ripens earlier than others. 49. ok as is - in 2006 Island river and Sand river were ripe before Aug 14. 50. No then people might think it’s ripe at that time. 51. Doesn't matter. 52. No comment 53. August 10th would be better. 54. We are smart enough to know if the rice is ripe. 55. Some lake if ripe, rice will be all gone before August 14- if you know! 56. You can't harvest tell the rice is ripe anyway. 57. If rice is ready, harvest or lose the opportunity. 58. Makes no difference it still isn't ready. 59. Ripening of rice varies widely even in water in close proximity. 60. Does it make a difference? 61. That's too late in my area to start. 62. Doesn't ripen save every year. 63. Lake Alice is early, same years mid Aug. 64. More enforcement and rules of what is green rice. 65. Also eliminate closing date- Pick till the rice is gone. 66. The date should be the same as the first body of water becomes ripe. 67. As some northern MN rice lakes ripen earlier. 68. I believe people will start picking Aug. 14 ripe or not. 69. I don't know the issues- don't have firm opinion. Rice is ready to pick on labor day weekend and not before. Aug. 14 is too early- set it at Labor 70. day weekend. 71. Pick when it's ready. 72. August 1 would be better. 73. Harvest when rice is ripe. 74. Some areas of state ripen earlier. 75. Some lakes, not many are ready earlier. 76. Mid September start would protect the green rice. 77. No! Have riced Aug 12, 13, and 14 some years. 78. I prefer the old method of DNR posting beds "opened" when ripe and ready. 79. Although July 15 is too early, Aug. 14th maybe too late some years. 80. Could cause green picking. 81. Some beds may be ripe before Aug. 14.

77 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Harvest Date to August 14

Ready to harvest MN trapper Assoc. annual rendezvous weekend prior to Aug. 14 2006. Sioux 82. River in St. Louis city in prior years done ripping to Aug. 14th as is different strain- Canadian!!!

83. Maybe August 1st. 84. Harvest when ripe- DNR enforced. 85. Both are too early. Most years are about August 26. 86. Harvest depend too much on variables of nature some years are early, some late! 87. Green rice can't be picked and nobody tries to then. 88. I am not completely sure when is better. 89. I sometime canoe to rice to see it, no license on canoe July 15th is obviously too early- if changed to Aug. 14 many people may start on this date 90. thinking its ready. Having the "opening day" close to the actual time when the rice may be ripe will encourage the 91. harvest of green rice. 92. I would like to see Sept 1st. 93. It seems irrelevant 94. an August 14 start would concentrate pressure and damage beds 95. we couldn't get our license until 15 Sept. most rice gone 96. Too late wind blown rice down. 97. July 15 is ok, you don't go when it isn't ready. couple yrs ago - 200 lbs 2-3 hrs - 06 Aug. Rice didn't even need to be knocked just pulled over 98. canoe, sounded like rain. Lot of rice early that year. We start checking 01 Aug. on sun rain temps some years early. Don't like it 99. I would prefer Sept 1 100. you don't rice until its ripe some lakes are ripe earlier. 101. no one harvests unripe rice 102. Rice is not ready at that time, if rice is filled out then its time to harvest. 103. again, why change? No one goes before mid-August. Eliminates opening day syndrome. 104. Only allowed to pick ripe rice. 105. It doesn't matter, either way the rice isn't ripe yet. 106. the July date puts the responsibility on the picker to determine when the rice is ready. with mostly all experienced ricers no date or posting is needed. A farmer harvests when crop is 107. ready. 108. It's not ripe either date, and there is no competition to harvest early. 109. Law still requires that rice be ripe - start date is not relevant. 110. an August 14 start would concentrate pressure and damage beds 111. Some lakes ripen early, depending on weather conditions. 112. This is our 1st time, so we don't know. 113. Keep the same hours. 114. 1 Aug. would do. 115. When rice is ripe you could pick! 116. Rice ripens differently from year to year July 15 works. 117. Rice doesn't always ripen by the calendar. 118. Crop may mature Aug. 1st. Publish openings best with 2 day notice. 119. I just harvest it when it is ready. 120. Depends on the weather and a good ricer will know when its (ready) ripe.

78 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Harvest Date to August 14

121. If global warming rice might ripen early than August.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

122. Since wild rice does not normally ripen till after Aug 14. 123. To insure immature plants are not damaged. 124. and or later, depend on seasonal weather currents. 125. common sense would say 14-August 126. If rice is not ripe, you just knock down the rice. 127. Too many picking green. 128. makes sure people don’t trample rice that isn’t ready 129. Rice is not ripe that early. 130. It isn’t ripe until September. 131. not ripe. 132. Though our first year the rice was all gone in our spot by July 26th 133. It is not ripe in my area in July. 134. simplify things 135. Less chance of harvesting too early of ripeness. 136. There is no rice ready in July. 137. Ripe rice later. 138. rice in not ripe July 15th 139. Or after Aug. 14 depending on the ripening of rice on each lake. 140. Rice isn’t ripe until late august. 141. Not ripe till after that date. 142. July 15 seems too early most of the time. 143. I’ve never seen ripe rice earlier than that. 144. No rice is ripe in July. 145. I have had many people ruin the areas I work. Sept. 1st would be great. 146. We don’t have rice harvest ready until late August. 147. And the cost should not be $26.00 for the whole season. 148. Here rice is never ripe until almost Sept. 149. Starting later for all may allow rice to ripen more. 150. No wild rice in N. MN is ready in July! 151. It’s not ripe by then. 152. More appropriate for us in our region. 153. It should depend on how ripe the rice is. 154. 14 of August is plenty early. 155. It’s never ripe that early anyhow. 156. None 157. Early rice harvest ruins rice beds. 158. rice is seldom ripe any sooner anyway 159. Rice doesn’t ripen until later date- People may destroy it prematurely. 160. July 15 is too early. The rice doesn’t ripen until the 1st of September.

79 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

If your going to charge high license fee, lets manage the individual lakes. Ripe rice harvesting 161. varies from lake to lake. 162. Past dictates that we always open too early. 163. Need to keep inexperienced people out of immature rice as long as possible. 164. Rice is never ready that early. It only destroys the crop. 165. would help prevent premature damage. 166. July 15th is way too early- it is never ripe then. 167. Both dates are prior to a rice crop- doesn’t matter. 168. Seldom ripe before August 14. 169. It’s not ripe then anyway. 170. Make sure it is ripe. 171. Better if changed to Aug. 20th 172. Change it to August 25th. August 14 is to early for northern part of state. 173. The rice usually isn’t ripe until then anyway. 174. We are far north, so it doesn’t ripen until September here. 175. where would you find ripe rice in Northern MN? In July. 176. Didn’t seem to be ripe enough when we went. 177. Rice usually isn’t ripe until Aug. in Northern MN. 178. Give the rice the chance to ripen 179. it would help the rice from being picked green 180. rice not ready early 181. July 15 is too early and damages beds. 182. Not ripe in July. 183. And too often- ricing season should be determined by county when it is ripe. 184. Most years you don’t start until the end of August anyway. 185. Of course, never heard of rice ripe in July. 186. Rice doesn’t ripen until the end of August or early September. 187. I wouldn’t think it is ripe in July 188. Novices will attempt to rice when crop is not ripe. 189. Enforce laws to regulate lakes better. 190. People come in and beat up green rice 191. There is no ripe rice on July 15. 192. In our area the rice is getting ripe approximately. August 20th. 193. must harvest ripe rice 194. Very little rice is in shattering stage that early. 195. Nothing ready before Aug. 14. 196. I have only done it one time, but it was still green labor day. 197. It still will not be ready. 198. definitely! 199. July 15th is too early- we used to start in August near the 1st of Sept. 200. Some people don’t understand you should only harvest ripe rice. 201. In northern MN it is never ready by then. 202. Although with global warming we may see earlier ripening. 203. Although generally meaningless as rice would still not be ripe.

80 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

204. This may help prevent some green rice beds from being beat down. 205. Some are not waiting for it to be good and ripe. 206. Depending on conditions of rice and native practices. 207. I don’t recall it being ripe prior to Aug. at least not in northern MN. 208. I don’t believe rice is ripe on July 15. 209. Rice has never been ripe in this area before Aug. 20, usually Aug 25. 210. July 15 to early- knocks unripe rice down. 211. Several others have commented on harvest of green rice. 212. I would like to know why- what arguments for/against are there? 213. There is virtually no wild rice ripe before Aug. 14. 214. never made since having a 7/15 start date. 215. If the rice is ripe and support early harvesting. 216. At least it might be ripe. (better chance) 217. Seems to ripen in late August. 218. Hotter in July than August. 219. Rice is usually too green in July- depends on weather also. 220. Not ripe. 221. Even later to last week of Aug. Too many pick green rice. 222. Rice generally not ready till later. 223. Open northern lakes earlier Aug. 1 Southern Aug. 14 224. It’s not ripe in July. 225. Most rice still isn’t ripe by August 15th. 226. The rice is too green and it hasn’t ripened. 227. Too early- rice still undeveloped or milky in most areas. 228. Not ripe in July and would keep people from harvesting un-ripe rice.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

229. Rice isn't generally ripe on July 15. 230. There are still too many people who try to pick green rice. 231. To prevent buds getting wrecked by harvesting to early. 232. DNR still opens lakes when rice is still green. 233. Rice in this area never ripens before the end of august. 234. Ridiculous to set 7-15 as an opening. 235. July is too early. 236. July 15th is too early. 237. Rice is not ready in July. Too many people don't know (or else care) when rice is ripe. It should open depending on when 238. rice is ripe. 239. August 15th. 240. Rice is too green in July. 241. Opening day is when it’s ripe. 242. The later the better.

81 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

243. Change it August 30, because that's when the rice is ripe. 244. Some lakes are harvested too early. 245. More chance of being ripe. The lack of recognition of ripe stands of wild rice by inexperienced ricers puts them at more risk. 246. 247. No rice is ready. 248. Would make good sense to let rice ripen more! 249. Rice not ready to harvest sooner. 250. Different lakes ripening up at different time. 251. Never found any ripe this early. 252. Or used the tribe's for opening all! 253. See attached #1 most lakes should be regulated by local DNR. People are picking green rice to early and ruining 254. the rice and making other people mad. 255. because it’s never ripe that early anyways. It will prevent/reduce green rice harvesting. Global warming is shifting ripening. Is Aug 14 early 256. enough to anticipate changes over the next few years? 257. Very rarely is rice ripe in July- not ever actually. 258. I think July 15 is early. 259. Keep green ricers away. At least until ripe. 260. July is too early. 261. Rice is never ripe by July 15 Aug 20th would be better. I personally believe that the large rice beds need to be monitored and 262. dates set when there ready to begin harvesting. Ex. Jerry McHugh did an excellent job of setting date & monitoring wild rice - north of Virginia. 263. Doesn't change any ricing days in our area. 264. Rice isn't ready for harvesting until late August anyway. 265. It has been my experience that the rice has never been ripe enough in July. 266. July 15th is stupid- never ripe in July. 267. Aug 10. 268. It's not ripe until the last part of August. 269. We go when the rice is ripe so start date is not important. 270. There is no ripe rice in July. 271. It shouldn't open that early. It should open by lake when ripe. 272. I've only riced 3 years but have never found it ripe until early September. 273. yes, if ripe crop. 274. I've never seen it ripe that early. 275. It's not ripe in July. 276. Absolutely 277. Rice isn't ripe in July. 278. Wild rice is never ripe July 15 or even Aug. 14. How about Sept. 1 279. I seldom see ripe rice in July or early August. The July 15 date is irrelevant. The rice is never ripe before mid Aug. It makes the DNR look 280. incompetent. 281. Rice in our area usually doesn't ripen until later. 282. Rice could be riper.

82 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

283. Rice never ripens that early. 284. No rice is ready any way at that date. July 15 is nonsensical- nothing is ripe- open the beds when they are ripe. This is the primary 285. responsibility of the DNR- harvesting green rice wrecks the beds. 286. Seems reasonable considering when most rice ripens. No rice is ripe in N. MN 7/15. The Green rice law is too vague. Significant rice lakes should be 287. posted, monitored and opened on specific dates. 288. It's never ready until Aug 14 usually. 289. Rice is never ripe until mid-August. 290. after 3rd weekend in August. 291. It is rare to find ripe rice as early as 7/15. 292. July 15th? Who thought it might be ripe? 293. in this area. 294. it hasn't even begun to form rice in July. 295. unless lakes in Northern MN are prone to ripening earlier. 296. In Grand Rapids area, earliest lake ripens app. Aug. 20. 297. I'm not aware of rice ripening before August! 298. rice isn't ripe until the 3rd week in August anyway. 299. July 15th is too early, the rice is not ripe. 300. Most pickers govern themselves, but some harvest way too early. 301. rice usually does not ripen till Aug 30th 302. open up Reservation lands to all like hunting. 303. Aug 20 is the earliest I have harvested rice 304. I don't think any rice is ripe before that 305. It's not ready that early. 306. If the rice is ready earlier it could be opened by the DNR. 307. rice is never ready before Aug 14th 308. Would be nice rice not ripe. (We look for ripeness of rice before harvest). The July 15 date is much too early. The Indians have the right idea when tribal elders open 309. reservation lakes to harvesting only when the rice is ready. DNR used to do that to a degree but I realize that takes money that DNR doesn’t have. 310. no need so early, only green illegal rice 311. rice can only be harvested when ripe 312. Aug 25 or later seasons and storm weather affects 313. It really doesn't matter to rice pros; would keep novices off the water. 314. It should be the end of August because everyone goes out to early. Every year, pickers go into a lake and ruin the rice bed picking green rice. August 14 is plenty 315. early even for the northern part of the state. 316. July 15 is to far in advance of maturation. 317. It's not ripe in July. 318. Would like to see open when ripe (monitor) and post lakes if possible by DNR. 319. Change would be fine. 320. The season opener doesn't matter! I don't harvest until the rice is ripe. 321. Is it ever ready in July? 322. That’s plenty early. 323. Rice is not ripe on July 15.

83 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

324. No one should be allowed to pick until ripe. 325. Too many people knocking off green rice and damaging the plants. 326. I worry about rice beds being abused (too early) 327. July 15 the rice is not ripe. 328. rice isn't ready until then anyway. 329. Wild rice does not ripen in July. 330. Harvesting green can damage crop. 331. would like it to be after third week in August 332. I have never harvested rice before Aug 14. 333. seems that nothing ripens in July. Green rice harvest a major problem/concern. Consider a flexible start date based on ripeness- like 334. Tribal Mgmt (lake by lake) 335. the Aug 14th date is more realistic. 336. Rice is never ripe on state lakes- give it more time. 337. rice usually not ripe before then (where we go) 338. Don't care, unripe is unripe. 339. it seems the rice is never ripe until Aug where I go. 340. people are out too soon. should be managed based on rice being ripe - to stop the harvest/destruction of green rice! 341. 342. It allows for more mature rice. 343. It is never ready before August 14th. 344. It doesn't seem like the wild rice would be ready earlier. 345. it never ripens so early anyway. 346. Too many idiots start to early and wreck rice. 347. rice doesn't ripen until Aug or Sept. 348. the rice here is not ready until Labor Day 349. Aug 20th would be even better. 350. you can only harvest rice when its ready 351. rice is not ripe at this time. 352. Yes- it's never ripe until late August. 353. Not usually ripe in July Since rice cannot be harvested that early it makes no sense to open the season then. It would be 354. convenient to be able to buy my rice license in the spring when I purchase my annual hunting/fishing license. Also be nice to purchase next season ski pass to 355. to many people start early ruining the beds 356. we don't rice till Sept. 5th-6th this year. 357. where we harvest it's never ripe till the end of August. 358. July 15 is too early! 359. Rice is not ripe yet in mid-August. Open when it is ripe! 360. Might stop some people from beating green rice. 361. July 15 is too early for an area. 362. rice not ripe in July 363. I am not aware of rice being ready in July. 364. There is no ripe rice in July in MN.

84 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

365. Really not a factor- rice is not ready until mid-late Aug. 366. The earliest I've ever gone out is late Aug. and then it's still green. 367. Rice is never ripe before late August anyway. 368. The rice is not ripe usually in July. 369. July too early, Aug 10th. 370. Don't really care since harvesting of green rice is illegal anyway. 371. Too many people start too early. 372. Usually harvest on 1854 commission waters. 373. Has the rice even been ready to harvest by July 15? 374. Early harvesting destroys the crop. Wild rice is still green July 15th. 375. Damn right! 376. Wasn't ready in July- we harvested early September. 377. No rice is ripe in MN in July. 378. I've yet to see rice ripe in July. 379. Rice is pretty good end of Aug. 380. No rice at July 15 anyways- doesn't matter date. 381. The rice is never ripe on July 15th. There must be like the res. Does and have a management of ripping one lake for ripping and 382. open accordingly. Have different zones to open south and north. 383. Some people go out to early and wreck rice beds. 384. It doesn’t get ripe till the end of august. 385. Wild rice is never ripe. 386. July 15th is too early. 387. It is tough to find ripe rice before august 14. 388. August 20 better yet. 389. People cannot stop from going to early. 390. Although it makes little difference, it seems the rice is ripe after Aug. 14. 391. The July 15 date is not feasible. Go back to posting lakes. 392. Rice is normally not ripe on Aug 14 393. See too many people out knocking green rice. 394. Is there ripe wild rice prior to Aug. 14? 395. There is no rice ripe on July 15 anywhere in the state. 396. I support, but don't see the point. Rice isn't ripe Aug. 14 either. 397. can't harvest until it ripe anyway! 398. Neutral on this..rice only harvested when ripe. July to ripe for ripe seed. 399. I have yet to see ripe rice by Aug. 14th. Aug. 23- yes. 400. Haven't heard of rice being ripe this early. 401. In our area that's way too soon. 402. Not ripe July 15 anyways. 403. Serious ricers- only harvest ripe rice, sadly some ruin rice beds by premature harvest. 404. It's not ripe till then. Rice is seldom ripe before last week of august in our area, but this may change with global 405. warming, so unsure. 406. Rice can ripen early 20th Aug. to early September. 407. No rice is ready.

85 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

408. Rice is more ready for harvest in August. 409. Wild rice just starts to bloom in July. 410. Keeps people out of the beds. 411. Seems to me that there is no rice ripe prior to Aug 14 anyway. 412. It's never ripe that early. 413. Too early, not ripe. 414. Closer to ripen rice. 415. Usually not ripe in July. 416. Pick rice when it’s ripe. The opening date varies. 417. The rice I harvest isn't ever ready until September. 418. I have never heard or seen rice ripe July 15. 419. Does it ever ripen before Aug 14?- No 420. Rice isn't usually ripe until after Aug. 14. 421. Never have gotten ripe rice before 8-18. 422. Many lakes aren't ripe until even later- lakes should be posted. 423. Some years the northern beds are ripe Aug. 10th. 424. It should open when the rice is ripe. 425. It would be better rice. 426. No rice is green in July. 427. It appears that harvesting/ripening doesn't even begin as early as 15-July. 428. It’s about time. 429. If this is judged to be best for 430. Never get ripe until last week in August 431. It's never ready in July. Or later- wait until it's ripe!!! Open each patch individually as you use to do- I don't think your 432. personnel is too over worked to handle it. 433. In my years of ricing, it has never ripened before that. 434. Because the rice is usually not ripe until middle of August or early September. 435. It's not ripe July 15 and seldom ripe on Aug. 15. 436. July 15 to early. 437. I have never seen "ripe" rice on July 15 or 30th in my life. 438. Rice isn't ripe July 15. 439. There is no ripe rice until the middle of Aug. 440. Never see ripe rice prior to the 14th. 441. No rice is ripe on 7-15 442. It's not ripe until mid August It’s usually not ripe until the end of Aug. and some people will not stay off green rice beds. 443. 444. Our records show that we never harvested before August 23. 445. July 15 is a joke- no rice is ripe that early. 446. A lot better but rice is still green then too. 447. Not ripe that early anyway. 448. If the rice crop isn't ripe by then there's no reason to open. 449. Who defines "green rice" could get challenged in court. 450. I harvest later when ripe.

86 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

451. Rice doesn't appear to be ripe until end of August. 452. Inexperienced ricers damage unripe crops with early opener. 453. Could be controlled early North later South. 454. Rice is non ripe until August anyway. 455. Global warming is just a 100 year cycle that's all. 456. It’s never ripe before August 14. 457. Not ripe on 7-15 458. I've lived in Northern MN. No rice is ripe or worth harvesting 7/15. 459. Rice is not ripe on July 15, so it doesn't make sense to open it that early. 460. I have never harvested rice earlier (not ripe yet). 461. I have never seen rice ready before mid-August. 462. It's not ripe before August 14th. 463. In our area rice wasn't ready in July. August would be better start date. 464. Makes more sense. I've never seen rice ripe in July. 465. It is not ripe before August anyway. 466. Rice isn't ripe until at least August 14. 467. When ripe 468. Saw people harvesting green rice. 469. The lakes with rice don't ripen until the end of august. 470. Start at the end of August. 471. There's no rice ready before 8/14 anyway. 472. Chance to get ripe, before it gets bushwhacked when not ready. 473. Rice usually does not ripen in Northern MN till labor day weekend or later. 474. Maybe August 1 475. Wild rice is never "ripe" at that time. 476. Very few beds are ripe in July. 477. Makes more sense given the natural ripen. 478. It's not ready in July anyway. 479. 7/15 too early. 480. Prevent harvesting under ripe rice. 481. To early to begin harvesting 482. opening season before rice is ripe is STUPID! 483. Should open closer to September1 or when 70% ripe. 484. To reduce risk of taking under ripe rice. It is a fall crop. 485. When the rice is ripe or later. Should be body of water specific. 486. Our area doesn't seem to be ripe until the later date. 487. The rice does not ripen until late August anyway.

2004-2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Harvest Date to August 14

488. To many early harvesters, they have it trampled by the time its ripe. 489. Don’t care 490. Depends on water conditions. 491. “ “

87 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2004-2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Harvest Date to August 14

492. I don’t know enough about it to comment wisely. 493. I don’t care. 494. Leave as is- pick when ripe. 495. Doesn’t matter-rice in my area ripens after either date. 496. Don’t know pros and cons. 497. Same as above. 498. I don’t know enough to have an opinion at this point. 499. Season should not start till rice is ripe. 500. Don’t know 501. It should be when the bulk of it ripens regardless of the date. 502. Whenever rice is ready. 503. No opinion. 504. This date cannot be set like this. The weather determines when to pick. 505. It makes no difference when you open it. 506. The rice should say when the season opens, not an arbitrary date!!! 507. Don’t care I harvest late Aug. 508. I do not pick green rice (ripe) 509. Depends upon the year, climate, etc. 510. Rice usually not ripe until end of Aug. locally. 511. No preference, it should start when ripe.

2004-2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

512. I think the start date should be announced each year according to ripeness. 513. It depends upon the year, the earliest year that it was 1977- early Aug. 514. Not sure if it makes any difference. 515. Don't matter, 516. July 15 and Aug. 14 is the same. 517. no opinion 518. Native American Rice committee opens the season. 519. need to be educated more to answer this question. 520. not sure what impact would be 521. Sept. 1st would be better. 522. the date will not mater if the rice is not ripe. 523. Not sure I know enough to comment. 524. no opinion. 525. Same comment as 13. 526. 1+ is always green. 527. I would say when rice is ready to harvest. 528. I was unaware of that early date. 529. N/A When rice starts to ripen that’s when to start harvesting, there's no date that would work season 530. after season. 531. this is a joke, each lake should open when the rice is ripe, should be regulated somewhat, by

88 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix H: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvest Season Opening Date, 2007.

2004-2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Harvest Date to August 14

532. Doesn't matter as long as open when ripe. 533. It's not even ripe by Aug 14th usually open it when it's ripe 534. Unsure since this was my first year. 535. Not sure 536. No difference, rice is not ready. 537. Rice doesn't ripen until late Aug. usually. 538. I don't know advantages or disadvantages. 539. No opinion 540. It doesn't matter it is not worth going unless it is ripe. Would support more education/information/enforcement of ripe rice. Rice harvest dates vary. 541. 542. Our lake isn't ripe until Sept., so the opening date is of no concern to me. 543. I don't care. 544. A non-issue is either way. 545. Our rice is never ripe much before labor day- no opinion. 546. I don't watch it that close. 547. I don't have an opinion either way. 548. Either is for too early in my area. 549. Doesn't matter because you don't harvest until ripe! 550. Not enough experience to comment 551. Don't have enough experience for valid opinion. 552. Doesn't matter, rice usually not ripe till late August. 553. Don't know enough.

89 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007

90 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

1. no need to change 2. Must keep harvesting non-commercial! Keep traditional. 3. Unless it can be shown that it does not harm the plant. 4. Preservation of the crop is most important. 5. Standard canoes. Most canoes are 36" or narrower, which is ok/length should be extended to 18.5 or 19' which 6. many modern canoes are. 7. 36 inches is nearly to wide a path through the rice. 8. 2" doesn't sound like a lot but t increases the overall cubic capacity a lot. 9. Crush rice. 10. Canoes normally are 36" (mine). 11. Keep it simple. 12. Too much damage would be done to rice stocks. 13. If you’re good at ricing, it's not necessary. 14. The canoe is appropriate. 15. I think that larger watercrafts would do unnecessary damage to beds. 16. wider could be more damaging to the rice beds 17. I don't know what the impact would be. 18. Would beat down more rice pulling through. 19. Only if a canoe. 20. I'm assuming 36" is a standard canoe; 38" is a ? 21. bigger might be more damaging to beds 22. 36 works okay 23. 36 is plenty. 24. keep as is 25. 36" is good. Maybe 38" would be safer. 26. From what I witness seemed to be big enough. 27. Too big- too hard on rice bed. 28. 36 inches is good. 29. narrower the vessel the easier the flailing. 30. Why? 31. 36 wide 32. Doesn’t need to be commercial 33. For what? Sounds like special interest change. 34. None 35. no need to change regulations 36. Drop it back the way it used to be. 37. Pushes more rice down, wider path, and no reason. 38. The wider the craft the more damage it can cause. 39. Never should there be anyway other than canoe. 40. It would cause over harvest. 41. Why? 42. wider watercraft lays down the rice to much. 43. The wider the swath, the more damage to the bed.

91 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

44. Fine the way it is. 45. Wider watercraft will damage rice (make more trips). 46. I see no reason to allow larger boats disturbing rice beds. 47. It only takes one fool to destroy the rice bed. 48. Over 34" starts to push rice apart and break stems. 49. Too much damage to rice bed. why? This is really dumb!! Why don't you just make it row boat sized and be done with it 50. 51. Some rice has to go back to waters. 52. Do what's best for the beds not the "greedy" ricers. 53. If I had my way, narrower traditionals would be used. 54. Too much rice damage. 55. Too hard to pole or paddle through rice anyway. 56. Damage to rice. 57. Need more information but canoes at present seem right. 58. Wider would damage more plants. 59. Why 38"? 60. Don't care.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

Maybe 40" our canoe was 38.5 with brace out 36" brace in, but do you measure from inside or 61. outside? 62. safety 63. This would include square stern canoes- safer. 64. some canoes are 37" wide. 65. Older people need wider boats. 66. Some fiberglass canoes wider as canoe fills. 67. why not, it's a lot of hard work for what a person gets. 68. Many canoes are at least 38". 69. Yes, most new canoes are wider than 35". 70. A lot of canoes are 38" wide 71. Canoe lengths should be increased to 19'. 72. Big deal- 2 more inches, canoes are still 36". 73. Don't think it would make that much difference. 74. If this change is to accommodate existing canoes that are more stable. 75. Canoes only 76. It is very difficult to find a canoe with 36" widths. 77. conditionally-I would support wider watercraft for handicapped people 78. More rice in the boat. 79. I don't think that would hurt the rice. 80. Safer. 81. the increase by 2" will make no difference in the harvest. 82. 1" on each side might be more stable but may be harder to get into rice

92 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

83. Less regulation is better. 84. Stability. 85. Wider canoe will be more stable. Although hard to pull when full. 86. If you take out middle bar it flex to wide? 87. Yes because when you take yoke bar out of 36" boat it can be 37" wide. 88. More secure boat. 89. A lot of canoes are less than 17 feet long, but greater than 36" wide. who cares about the measurements of the canoe-people should use the canoe they already have, 90. not have to have a different boat for ricing. 91. Most current canoes made 38" (no special boat). 92. Although generally meaningless as rice would still not be ripe. 93. Canoes are wider now. 94. Canoe style boats a couple inches don't matter I feel. 95. If it means more people will do it. 96. Increase stick length, without increasing weight. 97. any canoe should be ok. 98. Should not negatively impact crop. 99. Safer boat to pull.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - No Response to Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches 100. Don't care 101. Doesn't really matter- leave as is. 102. Why 103. Maybe, but why. 104. Not sure about the effect. Less impact the better. 105. Smaller the better, 38" to wide. 106. Doesn't really matter that much. 107. Not sure. 108. No opinion. 109. No opinion. 110. unsure

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

111. It seems like that would be harder on the rice plants 112. Really doesn't matter. 113. Over 36" damages standing grain in crosswind. 114. Used to be no longer than 16'? Which I would support. 115. If it would damage the beds, no- if not then no difference. 116. most boats are 36" 117. Works good this way with less damage.

93 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

118. Don't know how a diff. This is. 119. The smaller boats are easier on the rice plants. 120. I think 36" is plenty wide. 121. I think wider canoes would just knock down more rice plants. 122. Wider is harder to push. Who wants to pole a bigger boat? I don't think a larger boat would have or give any advantage. 123. 124. No reason too. 125. A lot of people using 38" wide now, then they will have 40" wide. 126. 36 is plenty. 127. I am concerned that wider watercraft will cause more damage to the stalks. 128. More challenging to pole and I believe more destruction/broken and bent stalks with larger craft. 129. Historical reasons to limit sizes of boats etc. are good ones. 130. 36" is good. 131. 36" is adequate. 132. Potentially increased damage to rice beds might occur. 133. 36" is plenty. 36" does enough damage. wider boats lay over more rice in the boat trail making it slightly more likely to rice would 134. snock and twist in a shorter period of time during the harvest. 135. I like things as they are. 136. Square stern canoes shouldn't be allowed. Too wide in back. 137. Should be limited to canoes. 138. Wider boats just flatten rice faster. 139. Likely too much damage to the rice bed. 140. Ruin the beds. 141. Wider boats beat up the rice too much. 142. More damage to plants. 143. damage to wild rice with a wider boat 144. Wrecks rice the wider the boat. 145. Most ricers now use canoes. Thus less rice breaking and tramping. 36" is wide enough, would flatten more stalks. Harder to get canoe through in shallow water. 146. 147. if you go 38 you may as well go to 48 148. would destroy rice 149. Greater impact on rice beds 150. Make trails too wide in rice, destroys it. 151. No reason to change. 152. why?? 153. Will 2 inches really help get more rice or damage rice? 154. When we do have a bumper crop a wide craft would destroy to many stocks. 155. Impact to rice stalks. 156. a 36" wide canoe leaves a wide enough track. No need to increase 157. Less damage to rice fields. 158. What would be the point of changing?

94 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

159. don't damage the beds. 160. Most canoes are 34-36" wide and are ok. Wider will damage rice beds. 161. Ruin too much rice. 162. Lose too much rice with wider boat, hard to reach. 163. Destroys the crop (to big). 164. 36" boats are plenty wide. 165. People will use boats that will ruin the rice stands. 166. Not if it damages the plant and beds. 167. No need for a bigger boat, plus bigger will wreck rice. 168. A wider width would damage the stalks more. 169. A lighter, thinner craft works better and causes less damage. 170. More rice being flattened. 171. No 36" is wide enough, other wise you just knock down more rice. 172. I guess it probably doesn't matter but the current regulation is fine. 173. It seems to me that too much cane will be pushed over- out of reach for subsequent harvest. A 174. No need for bigger watercraft. 175. I like what there are now. 176. Wider boats/canoes damage wild rice. 177. This is an absolute no. 178. Wider then 36" is impractical. 179. Look what bigger and bigger has done to other natural resources. 180. Because people break the stalks on the gunnels now! 181. What's the purpose of adding 2"? 182. Wider isn't always better. 183. may damage rice more 184. Fine the way it is. 185. No need to over harvest, reseeding lake is good. 186. A wider watercraft will do more damage to rice. 187. Wider boats chew up more of crop as they travel through bed. 188. Leave it alone. 189. The current standards are already braking too much. 190. Maybe after Sept 10th. 191. Wider boats may tend to lay down rice? 192. Less damage to rice beds. 193. very few canoes are wider than 36" 194. Will damage rice. 195. lays down the rice too much 196. No need I believe if a boat gets to wide too many stalks will get broke over when pulled in boat. 197. 198. Would cause wider tracks in rice beds. 199. A wider watercraft knocks down and ruins rice beds. Picture of duck boat results 200. It leaves too wide of path through rice. 201. Not sure. Don't want big swaths through the rice. 202. Enough rice is knocked down at 36"

95 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

203. This would cause damage to the crop. 36" is right. 204. 36" watercraft are stable enough. 205. You do not ever need it that wide. 206. 36" wide boat knocks down enough rice. 207. Some flatter canoes flatten rice too much now. 208. Makes too big of trail in the bed. 209. I would keep it as traditional as possible 210. Need to know reason for a change to support it. Wider boats squish more rice. 211. Would break rule. 212. too wide makes wider trails, knocks down more rice. 213. Rice already gets compressed with 36" wide boat. 38" is too wide. 214. knocking down more is all 215. It will ruin stalks (lays it down) keep it traditional. 216. 36" wide is ok. 217. Wider watercraft will do more damage to the rice. 218. Ruin the rice if wider. 219. It's hard on wild rice crops. 220. Canoes only. 221. Damage to rice will occur as stems are spread apart and pushed under with boat passage. 222. Hard enough getting rice into a canoe. 223. Can hardly push 36" boat through good rice/knock down too much rice. 224. 36" is more than adequate. Such width extension would increase amount of rice harvested per unit time and return fewer 225. grains back into the lake as seed for next year. 226. For the health of the rice. 227. Wider craft break down rice stalks in thick beds. 228. Wider watercraft would knock more rice off into lakes. 229. to wide wider boat will damage more rice stalks. 230. Flat bottom boats should be outlawed! 231. Too much damage to rice beds. 232. Wider boats will damage more rice. 233. You can always come in and dump your load and go out again. 234. 36 inches is a good width for ricers and the rice beds. 235. would knock down to much rice, also to hard to push. 236. I support legislation keeping it as close to tradition as possible. 237. Not necessary. 238. Canoe is fine 239. damage to rice 36" is enough. Wider craft greatly damage beds as in the days of old flat bottom rice boats. 240. 241. enough damage is done w/ the 36" boats 242. It's tradition. 243. Too much destruction of beds already. 244. more rice would be broken & pushed down with wider watercrafts. 245. Narrow flattens less rice, 38 may be ok.

96 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

246. What you got in mind that fits that criteria? 247. Narrow craft do less damage to rice straw. 248. Big swaths through beds knock down more rice. 249. watercraft is currently big enough 36" is enough. Wider craft greatly damage beds as in the days of old flat bottom rice boats. 250. 251. Rice knock down and kill would be too high. 252. Wider boats can do more damage to beds. 253. larger canoes would flatten more stalks and generally cause more damage 254. Pretty soon 40"? Then pontoon boats. 255. Damaging to the bed. No good reasons to allow wider boats except greed. 256. Will only make a bigger trail. 257. The wider the boat means more damaged rice. 258. Breaks the rice and leaves a bad trail. 259. Breaks the rice and leaves a trail of destruction. 260. It would knock more rice down and tangle up the rice bed. 261. 36 is ok. 262. Indifferent. 263. Would be harder to harvest- may damage more rice. 264. Wider boat will just lay down more rice. 265. You would damage too much rice. 266. would destroy too many plants 267. Cause move rice to be knocked over during harvest. 268. Knock too much rice over when you go through it. 269. Again- other than commercial operators, no need.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

270. some Alumacraft canoes are 38" Grumman 36". 271. Many traditional Anishiinaabe birch bark ricing canoes were/are wider than 36" 272. most canoes are manufactured to this width 273. some canoe models are slightly wider than 36" 274. It really makes no difference. 275. 38" would be less tippy 276. most Grumman's with the thwarts are 38" wide anyway. 277. it doesn't seem 2 more inches would hurt the rice. 278. if you can find someone to push it. 279. 38" would allow for better picks. 280. if it doesn't hurt rice. 281. It would be safer 282. see new canoe widths 283. most canoes are 38" 284. most canoes are 38" 285. Canoe should be 19 ft.

97 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

286. Do not think it will reduce rice crop. 287. not many ricers, it only harder to push 288. I don't think 2 inches would harm the beds. 289. Little more stable, it shouldn't hurt rice. 290. More stable and handle more rice. 291. Canoe length should be up to 19 feet long. 292. There is so few ricers that it wouldn't matter. 293. Some popular canoe models (old town) are 37 inches wide. 294. ok 295. But wider restricted to canoes. 296. Airboats should be allowed like in Canada. 297. Most commercial made canoes are at least 36" wide. 298. 2 more inches wouldn't hurt. 299. Some Alumacraft and Grumman canoes are 37.5". 300. It wouldn't hurt and would make for less tips in the drink. 301. More pounds of rice in watercraft with wider watercraft. 302. Alumacraft's are 371/4" wide, some fiberglass are 38" wide. 303. If one removes one of two swaths, the canoe gets that wide eventually. 304. Maybe- Is the intent to limit harvest to canoes? 305. Some canoes are that wide. 306. Two inches doesn't matter. 307. Safer. 308. Fine, but a 2" difference isn't all that more beneficial. 309. I had two 8 year olds in a canoe, It would be nice for stability with kids. Because we need a large boat to put our rice in that will fit 700-800lbs in 5-6 hours, according to 310. lake bottom and location. 311. 42" 312. Most Grumman canoes spread over 36" 313. If they are canoes only. 314. Some 17' stern back are good ricing canoes. 315. For larger people that have trouble with a canoe. 316. Old law- wider boats are not practical anyway. 317. A lot of boats are that wide anyway. 318. When canoes get older esp. alum. They tend to spread. 319. Change would be ok. 320. More rice w/less trip if good. 321. If standard canoes are 38" wide. 322. My canoe is borderline width, would rather be certain I'm legal. 323. 1/2 foot long would be good. 324. I don't think 2" would hurt beds. 325. Many canoes are 38". 326. I don't believe 2" in more would make any difference. 327. Some canoes are wider than 36". 328. Minimal impact except to the pros. 329. Another 2" wouldn't matter other than benefiting the harvester.

98 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

330. Don't know how many this would affect; maybe a few canoes / boats. 331. Two inches is no big deal. 332. lots of canoes are over 36" wide. 333. Most people are at that 38" or more now. 334. safer 335. Can't see this being much of an issue. 336. Design standards of canoes are not easily found 36' and less. 337. Most canoes would measure 38. 338. I believe that with less ricers there is plenty of seed falling in on its own. 339. What's 2 inches. 340. More stability. 341. If 38 inches is more common. 342. Some canoes are slightly wider than 36". 343. dose not matter to me 344. whatever… 345. Allumacraft camper canoe is 38" (same as regular canoe in rice beds). 346. Many 36" wide canoes widen out anyway with the brace out and a load of rice. Provide stability for the less adept. As long as there would be no damage to stalks. 347. 348. Probably wouldn't hurt anything. 349. Hard to find a narrow canoe. 350. As long as it is a canoe. 351. So I can use my dock boat

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - No Response to Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

352. Unless there is some reason. 353. I guess the boat would be more stable, but would it take in to much rice?? 354. Undecided 355. No opinion. 356. Same comment as 13. 357. I think some already use larger boats than allowed by regulations. 358. Doesn't matter- not a priority issue. 359. Don't care 360. No opinion 361. No opinion 362. I have no opinion on this- we just rice for our own use. 363. This one doesn't matter. 364. why - if it allows use of current why not boats 365. not sure what impact would be 366. What’s the point? 367. does not impact me 368. No opinion. 369. I don't know enough about this issue.

99 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix I: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Watercraft Width Increase, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - No Response to Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

370. I don't have an opinion either way. 371. No opinion. 372. No opinion. 373. Not enough experience to comment 374. Don't have enough experience for valid opinion. 375. Not sure but probably yes. 376. Unsure. 377. Don't know enough. 378. Not sure. 379. no opinion

2004-2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Change in Watercraft Width to 38 inches

380. Wider boats would just knock down rice. 381. 2" on every boat knocks down a lot of rice in one day.

100 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresidents 7-day License, 2007

101 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - No Response to Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

1. maybe 2. only if pheasant hunting in Dakotas is extended. Restrictions should be lifted, but only if all states For who? Is this a trick question to include non-Indian? With more jurisdiction since you got our 3. foot in the door? 4. Not sure 5. Undecided 6. Prefer a season- long license. 7. How would this impact harvest. 8. Undecided- it is the commons; however, less rice and more competition/pressure on many local 9. They should not be able to rice. 10. It doesn't matter. 11. How about a 3 or 4-day license. 12. Spare the rice/reseeding is essential, right? Not sure but probably not. (want to keep ricing for locals who know how to respect manoomin. 13. 14. Depends on how many licenses are sold annually now. 15. No thoughts here. 16. It doesn't matter.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

Problem is finding a partner with time to pick rice. I have a nephew who would like to rice with me but is a Nonresident. He works M-F but could come 3 weekends during ricing. A 7-day 17. license would only allow one weekends. Cost of license needs to be low or it won’t work

18. I think we should encourage out of state ricers. But 7 days may be too long. What about 3 days, they can pick the day. North Dakota residents 19. could wait 7 days after a given lake opens (like the delay NO giver to non-resident hunters). They should be able to get enough for personal use, not enough to 20. more people into rice the better. 21. that be ok by me. 22. It’s more fare, it should be expensive though. 23. 7 days would be ok but 3 days is sufficient. 24. Why not. 25. There’s enough rice for them too. Native Americans believe mahnoman to be a gift from the great spirit. Yes it should be made 26. more accessible to more people. 27. This is an important cultural event- please open to more people. 28. Good for local economy if their willing to stay longer. 29. It will provide more money to the state (2 day weekend pass). 30. Its hard work if they are willing why not. We need to keep the new and existing rice plants operating to their fullest potential. 31. 32. Both 1 and 7 day should be issued maybe in 3 day.

102 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

33. And allow for 7 day resident License is prohibitively expensive, especially for those who just want to try ricing for a day or 34. two. 35. More people we have harvesting and interested in wild rice the better. 36. If same applies to their state and Canada’s providence. 37. Gives you more rice time than running to buy daily. To use 7 days you have to be serious about it. It’s good revenue, and it may get more people out 38. instead of fewer people. Charge them more money. Why does the government have to be so punitive and greedy. What’s 39. next- a daily permit to pick blue berries? 40. Friends would visit state to participate. If people want to come and harvest rice for a week, that’s fine with me, as long as they pay more. 41. 42. I lived, was raised in MN for 30 years and I rice out of family traditions. 43. Relatives would be encouraged to return to MN from out of state. I think more people would buy them and more people would get involved in something that is 44. becoming a thing of the past. 45. Day would make more sense (2 fall weekends). I recommend keeping non-resident cost for a license the same, but making it good for 7 days 46. instead of 1 day. 47. Change them enough to make it worthwhile. 48. Any 1 day could be weathered out or they problems. 49. As long as the day license is available. 50. Not much pressure now from locals vicinity. 51. Very few non-residents so it won’t make much difference. 52. Some people like to rice. 53. I could invite out state friends and family to experience ricing. 54. More people ricing would be good for the over all culture. 55. WI or other surrounding state residents. 56. I would leave family members from other states come and go out with me. I think that most non-residents go ricing for the outdoor experience enjoyment and a 7-day 57. license would add to their experience by giving them a little more time to choose their days.

58. Don’t care really- if the rice is good, there’s plenty for everyone. The weather can affect when one goes, it would be good to have a little margin of time. 59. I live 200 yards from the MN border – I paddle 100’s of miles in MN each year but I am limited 60. to a costly single day of harvesting rice. 61. So few resident ricers? 62. I would love a 7-day license. 63. Only if Wisconsin opens for MN residents. Yes on week or season. Poor rice can make it quite expensive. I think $75-100 would be fair and 64. probably bring in more money. 7-day license would allow non-resident family to travel in and experience. Possible might have 65. resident with license with them, to teach and protect bed.

103 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

66. More the better. 67. Make many for the state. DNR 68. I don’t think they would over harvest the rice. I have had friends come to town and the license is so expensive they could only rice one day. 69. I support the change so long as the license fee is commensurate with MN Non-resident fees in 70. neighboring states. If nonresidents want to harvest, give them a better deal, then only 1 day, a lot of people live on a 71. budget. 72. Allow more people the experience. 73. Why not? Allow non-residents to make a vacation out of it. 74. something like 7 or by the day? 75. See attachment #1 76. Provided there is enough rice. 77. I have out of state friends that would like to harvest. 78. I would like to see them charge for 5 single days on a 7-day license. 79. More revenue for state. 80. Fewer people are picking- more non-residents would not hurt a thing. Visitors to residents should have more than 1 day- 2 or 3-day license would be ok. 81. 82. 1 day not enough depending on weather. with the current decline in licenses this seems logical and prudent. Only so long if the price for 83. non-residents is reduced it’s currently outrageous. 84. no license at all! Competition down. 85. Would be better for them. 86. If people enjoy, let them pick…nobody else does. 87. This would give them a window to work in. 88. Border licensing is getting out of hand. 89. We may move, wish to come back and rice. offer both, however, if the wild rice resource is compromised by over harvesting, eliminate Non- 90. resident harvest. 91. Most of them will probably only rice 1 or 2 days anyway. 92. out of state people may buy and harvest. 93. More people learning about/repeating rice is good. Unless it becomes abused. On the subject of licenses, it would be nice to have a family or 94. husband/wife license that is less expensive than 2 individual ones.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

95. Do not support any non-resident licensing. 96. I guess I think its our territory- our rice. 97. The rice is for the people that are here. 98. Keep non-residents away from our rice. 99. You should live here to harvest here!

104 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

We don't need non-residents. The taxes and fees I pay in MN are not for the benefit of non- 100. residents. I do nothing in ND. most non-residents area from WI and have their own rice beds and state would not benefit that 101. much to change it. Also most Non-residents may not be as experienced and could ruin some beds of rice - more comments when I see & meet you. 102. To protect the harvest for residents. 103. Where I rice, often 3 days the rice is pretty thin. I do support a shorter-than-season resident license for those who spend 1-2 weekends harvesting 104. rice. MN residents already restricted by reservation lakes, no need for more people in MN. 105. 106. There are enough ricers now. 107. They can harvest an adequate amount for personal use in a single day. 108. That many days may cause more rice to be sold out of state. 109. Whites are so restricted, a lot of people have stopped because of it. 110. Save something for residents. 111. They can go manage there lakes (i.e. w/DNR) 112. Adamantly opposed. 113. leave it in are state. 114. They over charge us. 115. This is unique MN grain- They may buy it. 116. Most states restrict us on trapping and other activities. 117. Not enough rice as it is. 118. I'm selfish about ricing. 119. One day at a time is enough. 120. Could prove commercial with over harvesting. 121. As far as I am concerned, the wild rice belongs to the Ojibwa of MN. 122. we do not have enough for the locals to allow wholesale harvesting If a non-resident wants to rice more than 1 day, let them purchase additional days, one day at a 123. time. 124. It would push more rice down. I would support longer canoes. 125. There's not enough rice now. Quantity and quality of beds is decreasing. 126. Ricing should be for residents only. 127. How about a 7-day resident for $10.00 and $5.00 for those 65 yrs and older. It’s a resource for food for our family. Expenses, licenses, gas, time away from regular job have 128. tripled but we need the rice. 129. I believe this is a resource that is for state residents. 130. I'd like to preserve this as a Minnesota resource. A one-day license lets anyone experience ricing. A 7-day license now allows them to compete 131. with local residents!!! 132. I don't believe we need the extra traffic. I would not support anything that would make it easier for Non-resident crews to sweep through 133. our lakes. 134. Crews of Mexicans will come and take it all. It would encourage over use of a scarce resource, which in turn would require more 135. management. Vicious circle.

105 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

with the Indians saving their rice for last and harvesting public lands first there isn't enough rice 136. to around sometimes. Wild rice is unique to MN. A fragile ecosystem and is under going stress due to climate change 137. and an ever expanding population. It should be left to mainly Native Minnesotans. 138. Non-residents don't care about damage to rice beds Focus on MN residents ricing for personal use not for commercial or resale purposes. 139. Recreational harvesters are important to this resource!! Wild rice is unique to MN. A fragile ecosystem and is under going stress due to climate change 140. and an ever expanding population. It should be left to mainly Native Minnesotans. 141. Longer hours may sell more resident licenses. 142. or no nonresidents like it was FNG, gum things up. 143. Its competitive enough already 144. I guess I would like some protection of MN resources kept to residents. 145. It is our market. 146. Keep focus on resident pickers. 147. I would agree to 7 day when everyone can rice on Indian Reservations. 148. I think we should keep our harvest to Minnesotans. 149. Really doesn't matter. 150. I don't think non-residents should have any ricing permits. 151. I feel that they non-residents. Just should not be able to pick period. 152. most non-residents don’t know how to rice. 153. 3 w/b better; 7 may be too much. 154. Don't encourage over-harvest of resources. 155. Non-resident could come in, harvest for a week, and sell the rice out of state. 156. Wild rice harvesting is a MN tradition, some years have limited supply. 157. Preserve our rice for the local residents. We have to wait to get on the water now. The landings are packed at 9am and 3pm. 158. 159. This is our special area luxury or sport. 160. ? Are there really that many non-resident ricers anyway? 161. But if one juvenile was with maybe ok. 162. But maybe a two or three day nonresident license. 163. There's enough pressure as there is. 164. If they want to rice here, let them live here. 165. They can go to Wisconsin 166. Keep it for Minnesotans. 167. They can buy a license everyday that they want. 168. Leave it to current residents only must reside 1-year minimum. I would also like to know why a Native American can harvest rice on public land but a non- 169. native American can't harvest on the reservation. 170. I consider it a privilege for them to even harvest in our state. 171. They can buy their rice from MN residents. 172. I have to get three licenses, (state, tribal, and 1854 auth.) More funding+ more habitat in theory and it seems one must work for a good haul as it is. 173. 174. If they are picking for their own use 1 day is enough.

106 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

175. Ricing is a MN tradition. 176. Because we need the money not the competition. 177. Non-residents should buy only state licenses. No matter how many days they rice. 178. 2 or 3 day at the most. 179. Leave rice for the loons. 180. Could lead to over harvest. 181. I would need to find out more info. Ex: How many residents currently harvest? 182. MN crop for MN! 183. Except to gather state fees, what would this accomplish. 184. Beds are getting enough pressure now. Whose dumb idea is this. 185. Unless other states lift their restrictions (fishing, hunting, etc.) 186. They may purchase multiple one-day license if more opportunity is desired. 187. I don't care either way. 188. non-residents should not be allowed to harvest rice in MN. 189. 2 or 3 day at most. 190. Only if their state reciprocates. 191. There is enough pressure on good lakes, without more out of staters ricing. 192. They don't pay enough to manage rice as is. 193. perhaps a 2 day license 194. With appropriate fee, I would support a one-day permit. 195. How about a 3-day instead. 196. Lower the cost for residents. 197. Not if the start date remains in July. 198. Absolutely not. (Don't let non-residents have 7 day).

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - No Response to Establishing a 7-day Nonresident

License 199. Need more info. To give you an informed answer. 200. Would need more information to make a decision. since I don’t know what the impact would be I don’t feel I should indicate a preference one this 201. one. 202. I don’t know enough about this to comment. 203. What are the expected ramifications? 204. Not sure. 205. It doesn’t matter to me. 206. unsure I don’t know if our crops can support it. If there is enough to go around sure. With this past 207. drought-no. 208. Not sure 209. $30 per day is outrageous.

107 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Supports Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

210. Give them both options 211. Why not? 212. I don't think it would bring that many people in. 213. For higher fees used to patrol and support ricing beds. 214. I don't know the impact; maybe a harvest weight-limit should accompany the 7-day pass. 215. If you pick with a resident you should be able to purchase a license fee the whole season for a 216. If they are property in MN. 217. Sometimes it takes 2-3-4 days to eat. 218. would make it a little easier for visitors 219. For non-commercial purposes only. 220. With reasonable license fee! I would like to have the opportunity for affordable ricing in my 221. Offer both (more revenue) 222. why not let more people… could be a tourist thing to do. 223. Many people visit the area for about a week. 224. again, why not - I've done a lot of ricing solo and sometimes for 8-10 lbs for the day. I have brothers that grew up in MN and would like to rice but with the one day license is 225. inconvenient. 226. they may travel long distances and make substantial investments 227. For personal use only. 228. Some non-residents come back to MN for the summer. Some like to harvest rice. 229. But keep the 7-day one as well. We should always be liberal and reasonable for non-residents since often we go to their states to 230. hunt and fish. 231. Either allows them to rice, or not. One day is not appropriate. 232. Why not? Not many ricers anymore. 233. as an option 234. relatives visiting seasonally 235. Only if reasonably priced! 236. Plenty of rice to go around. Let’s them get enough rice to be worthwhile but also shows them how hard it really is to go 237. multiple days. 238. cost of license very high for one day - esp. for a retiree who moved from MN. 239. Non-resident licenses are excessively expensive.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

240. They should rice in their own areas. 241. I se no reason to do so, yet a 2 or 3 day license would be nice. 242. The rice crop is for MN residents and the crop is limited. 243. Any money-making activity should be closed to non-residents. (Trapping also) 244. Rice should be for licensed residents and band members. Let Minnesotans harvest- we pay the taxes. I don't think there should be any out of state 245. licenses. 246. If they want to play they can get up and go get one by nine o clock.

108 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

247. It is hard enough to find good rice without lots of people. yes, we harvest as a family. When my brother relocated out of state (WI) we discontinued our 248. annual harvest. 249. certain restrictions are required to protect our Residential rice crop. 250. Non-residents need not apply 251. Wild rice is a state of MN product and should be kept that way. 252. Does the Dakotas let us hunt opener? Ducks, pheasants? 253. Back when I was in my teens. Sorry that's just the way it is on this one. They can get a multiday license for every other natural 254. resource we have, 255. I support extremely limited licenses for out of staters. 256. This is a benefit to living in MN. Depends upon price and if they can purchase more than one day at the time they purchase the 257. first license. Purchase 2 or 3 one day license for consecutive days. 258. Should be a resident to harvest rice. Other states (ND) are restricting hunting etc. for non-residents. A seven-day license is for all 259. practical purposes an entire season. 260. Would out of state market ricers take too much? 261. It would encourage over harvest. 262. This can enable non-residents (commercial) ricers to harvest out an area. Non-residents should not be allowed to harvest wild rice for more than the current 1 day. 263. The ricing is so poor it doesn’t make sense to have 1-day license as some days the wind is to 264. strong to rice. No South Dakota residents. $200 for North Dakota residents for 10 minutes per season. 265. 266. Leave the rice to those who pay MN taxes. 267. It would encourage more ricing for commercial use- except for Native Americans. 268. I don't want outsiders harvesting our rice. 269. Can MN residents rice in Wisconsin? It should be residents only. 270. what would that do to the rice for me. 271. would be nice if only 1 license was required per watercraft!! 272. Limit out-state harvest. 273. If quotas on non-resident were in place it might be acceptable. 274. 2 day at most (weekend warriors). 275. Nonresident should not be able to harvest rice. This privilege belongs to 1st nation people. 7 day would promote "profit" making by larger 276. pool. 277. I would support a 3-day nonresident license. 278. Too much risk of over harvesting for commercial purposes then!! 279. You could consider a 3-day. 280. Two days would be ok. That’s enough to get a pressable batch. No more than two. 281. It’s our rice, plus, our state and Indian people need the income. 282. I do not support non-resident ricing. 283. MN residents live here and pay taxes here. 284. Control on quality.

109 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix J: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Nonresident 7-day License, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Opposes Establishing a 7-day Nonresident License

285. Too much of our resources go to nonresidents. 286. Have a 3-day license for "residents." 287. Non-residents should not be ricing.

110 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix K: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Limiting Factors, 2007

111 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix K: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Limiting Factors, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Barriers to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

1. What happened to Big Rice lake north of Virginia? This management? 2. The 7 years out of the last 22 I did not pick. The first 2 were lack of a partner; the last 5 missed were lack of rice. 3. Post dates at all rice beds. 4. See below. 5. I can buy rice for $5.00/lb and use under 10 lbs (that is less than doing it). 6. Commitments with kids getting back to school. 7. The cost of license is out of proportion. 8. I eat what I pick, process my own. Cost, the license cost is so high it requires you to collect a large amount to make it worthwhile. 9. 10. Weather- quality of crop 11. Temperature, last few years have seen 80-degree days- miserable. Knowing the start or opening day to harvest- because some people harvest the rice before it is 12. ripe. 13. Under tribal control. 14. The license is very expensive! (especially if one races only a few times.) 15. Knowing the ricing hours. 16. 1- Other commitments that time of year. 17. Husband/wife both have to pay license- household preferred. 18. Husband and wife both have to but licenses. 19. 1- Cost of license. 20. Young pickers don't want to spend 50 dollars to "learn". 21. The lake we rice on is under tribal control and is often opened to late for good harvesting. 22. Finance tied to rapidly, dramatically increasing license fees. 23. I usually went by self- hard to pole and harvest efficiently. 24. Travel to site is 1 hour. 25. Cost of license for 65 and over could be reduced (or deleted). 26. wind, rain, high water, low water. 27. Getting older 28. Processor- who will process small quantities, 100 pounds or less? 29. good crop quantity on lakes accessible to me. 30. The license fee is too expensive. 31. Picking before rice is ripe post lake. 32. Finding rice that is thick and ripe enough. I didn't harvest rice, I tended pot thrashing, jigging the harvested rice. I got a license in case they 33. needed to go out in the canoe to harvest. 34. thin beds near north shore 35. It's not hot in the fall now with climate change. 36. Global warming- too hot, too dry. Too high with gas going up. 37. rice bed quality and unpredictability - rice one year, none the next 38. Interest 39. The license fee is way too high! (what do we get for it?) 40. Drop the regulation and the license, except for the ripe rice requirement.

112 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix K: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Limiting Factors, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Barriers to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

41. The wind d weather. 42. Time off from work, school, and guards. 43. quality of the local rice bed 44. You doubled the price of a license: that hurt!. 45. Back problems 46. $50 for both of us, for our own use is high. 47. More advance notices of opening time for each lake. 48. It's too much work for most. 49. Knowing where to go. 50. water level insufficient 51. Birds getting to the rice first - or storms, but that's just fine by me. I rice about 3 days a season, keep the rice, cost of license is too much. That is why I rice about 52. every 2-3 years. 53. Have a good crop year. 54. Scheduling work around ripeness time. Need to drive a ways to monitor the lake we rice. 55. Usually work till 4:00 so being able to rice in afternoon to sunset would be good. 56. Quality of rice. 57. Other work and finding good processor of small lots. 58. Finding a 36" width canoe! 59. the license is now much too expensive for the subsistence harvesting I do (i.e. 3 days). 60. Getting older, crippled up- partner too. Weather #1, closeness to home #2. 61. finding processor for little amount I harvest 62. License are too expensive.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Barriers to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

the small lakes should not be posted on the DNR web site, because you get 30 to 40 canoes per 63. lake (too many). I have always been against posting any lake on web site. People are going to early, takes its toll on the crop. 64. Quality/quantity of rice due water levels during growing season. 65. Bad weather 66. Agg hard work! 67. low water conditions 68. Getting older- bad shoulders. 69. the one-day license is expensive for amateurs who go 1x per year. 70. the 1-day license is expensive for amateurs who go 1x per year. Designate more lakes for wild rice and restrict the use of motorized watercraft- We have enough 71. lakes for fishing, not enough for rice ecosystems. 72. Increased commercial ricing license. 73. Fees are too high. 74. Gas and the ricing license is too high. 75. timing of ripe rice is most important 76. no time limit, pick all day 77. 1 Greedy people when they try to harvest when its green. 78. the illegal posting of Onamia lake

113 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix K: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Limiting Factors, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Barriers to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

79. cost of license too high. Only pick after work 3:00 pm closing time sucks! 80. knowing how to process 81. A "shrouded" electric trolling motor would allow more people to rice (seniors 65+). 82. Water levels too low. 83. Weather 84. License cost is excessive. No one picks public lakes to get rich. 85. 1- finding lakes. 86. Need to know in advance when Res. Opens seasons on different lakes. 87. Weather 88. too busy to work :>) 89. Having the time when the rice is ripe. 90. lake residents poisoning and destroying lake rice and shore 91. It is better when the lake are posted open because of some people going out too early. 92. None of the other above. 93. Only want 15 lbs for personal use and the license fee is too high for that. 94. Water levels. 95. Legal harvesting hours and cost of license. 96. Growing conditions. Some years there is no rice. 97. Going out on the bed after other people have beat up the rice stalks. 98. many lakes no longer have rice due to development and water fluctuation. 99. a list of rice processors in the state would be helpful 100. low water 101. I'm retired and need the rice for food- doubling the fees hurts the poor 102. License cost. My employer thinks I should work not take time off for rice. Go figure. Partner - sometimes they 103. also work couldn't time off. 104. Water level is the worst factor. 105. finding a rice processor close by - otherwise none. 106. finding lakes where the rice hasn't been flattened by people ricing way to early. 107. rice being beaten down by people harvesting prematurely 108. None 109. We sell our early rice and keep the rest. 110. Sometimes the reservation plays politics with opening time. 111. Low water. 112. The hours of 9 am to 3 pm. 113. Appreciate DNR rating the lake crop. 114. Generally people begin harvesting too soon, green rice. 115. Expensive license and gas to continually check for ripeness. 116. Knowing how to harvest. 117. Low water. 118. Poor boat landings. 119. By the time my partner and I pay for licenses, gas processing, etc. it is not cost-effective. 120. Access is becoming more and more limited- private ownership of shores. 121. Collect for personal consumption. Cigenee too expensive

114 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix K: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Limiting Factors, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Barriers to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

122. Young children in our family now. 123. I have mostly picked alone the last 15 years. 124. The 9 am - 3 pm are too restrictive. 125. Fearing possible future genetic pollution from GE wild rice! 126. No longer limiting but was off and on for years. 127. Finding managed lakes that are at proper level. 128. do your home work and things work out 129. Water levels. 130. Licenses are too expensive for those of us who harvest only for personal use. 131. knowing whether a lake is open or not (some lakes are posted with certain days only). 132. Travel time and days off from work- I take advantage of labor day. 133. 100 percent increase in license. I go every other year now. 134. Cost of the license. 135. See comment on attached #1 Question 16 136. People in control of some rice beds. 137. Taking rice when is ready on time is important because it ripens in layers. 138. Water level, high speed boats! 139. Experience- still learning 140. Lake access to some lakes very poor. 141. Sometimes finding a partner. 142. The travel time is hard. We have to return 90 miles each day in order to properly dry the rice. 143. The new plant near Deerwood helped a lot. Also Grand Rapids buyers. 144. Too expensive of license/nothing being done with license money. 145. Higher prices for green rice. 146. Water levels, some of the best rice is impossible to harvest. 147. Still just learning. 148. Bad weather. 149. Marketing processed rice. 150. I pick only for my own use and give to friends. 151. Having enough time available to rice. 152. Experience w/identifying ripe beds. 153. Many beds seem to have poor crops lately. 154. Back problems. 155. No water you can't harvest. 156. You charge residents to much money for license. 157. Low water. 158. Making sure rice is ripe enough. 159. Cost of license. 160. People picking green rice and ruining the bed of rice before it is ripe. 161. Better cooperation between tribal and state, so a person knows what lake is open and when. 162. Lack of reliable info about start dates on each lake. 163. Time- because I work I can only rice weekends. 164. Age cost of license - I harvest for personal use only. It's hard to justify $52.00 in license fees for 50 165. lbs of green rice.

115 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix K: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Limiting Factors, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Barriers to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

166. water level I love wild ricing and would love to support all efforts to protect this harvest and increase its 167. viability as a way for the Native community to earn a living. 168. The DNR would check the rice beds and keep us informed where the good rice was at. 169. It is a Labor Day weekend tradition to do some wild rice. Financial expense of license is mind blowing- it doubled in 1 year, ridiculous. How can you 170. expect to promote this sport/harvest if you double the residential fee? Think! 171. Water levels. 172. Time on the water, lets go sunrise to sunset. 173. Low water was nice when more lakes were posted with opening dates. 174. Weather conditions, water levels. 175. Low water levels have been the biggest problem lately. 176. Rice gets beat up bad when its green- does not have time to ripe. 177. Water level conditions. 178. The 1854 treaty authority web site is great! That kind of info. For other areas would be helpful. 179. Relying on mom to drive us there. 180. Pore crop- weather. 181. we call our processor (he's native) and has heared news! 182. Distance traveled. 183. Not being able to rice all waters. 184. Finding areas which are ripe yet not already pounded. 185. non-resident status Rice crop has been declining last several years, lucky if there was 40 acres of harvestable rice on 186. 2,000 acre lake. 187. Buyers are hard to find. 188. Finding good ripe rice to harvest. 189. High water and carp. 190. Finding time. 191. time - 3 pm ending 192. After 37 years, I make sure I'm prepared. 193. High price of gas and high price of state license. 194. This is first time I had a problem finding partner. 195. Hour of harvest, should be longer. 196. Whether it's a good or bad rice year. 197. We want labor day opener. 198. Work is hard and am getting old. 199. We use a lot of wild rice at times if I knew a processor for private use I would consider it, 200. Weather and ? That set artificial water depth. 201. I work 202. Lack of management- Beaver control, re-seeding, investigation of failed crops. 203. Weather effects on the rice. 204. DNR need to share more info when and where rice is ripe. 205. Finding good patties to rice, finding tome to go. 206. 3- Pickerel weed on big rice/habitat degradation. 207. Time off when conditions and rice are ready (during week).

116 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix K: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Harvesting Limiting Factors, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Barriers to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

208. Water levels, can you end this drought? 209. I rely on the 1854 web site for reg. Reports. 210. I love to rice alone. 211. Public access and docks. 212. We live right by Cramer lake, so distance and equipment not a problem. Biggest challenge is 213. Do better job of posting lakes. 214. License is very expensive for the amount of rice I harvest. 215. Increased license fee, 6-hour day. 216. Rice harvesting is not easy if the license fee goes up, I quit. 217. Not knowing when lakes away from home are ready to harvest. 218. Cost of license is ridiculous for me and my two sons 12 and 13. 219. Physical revulsion of driving through twin cities and Brainerd. 220. Water levels. 221. It costs to travel, we are paid coolie wages. 222. Cost of license with other expense like fuel. Closing time of 3:00 pm, working families only harvest in the evenings- have to take time off 223. work now, very limiting. 224. Knowing when DNR/state is buyer. 225. Local rice crop conditions. 226. The window for harvest is short and if the wind blows hard, it's done. 227. No canoe 228. Low water level, Big rice, Little rice. 229. Access to the lakes. 230. Nonresident restrictions and cost.

117 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix L: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Information Needs, 2007

118 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix L: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Information Needs, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Information that would Help to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

1. We try to harvest in small, remote, isolated lakes other people don't use. 2. 6 3. 1- none 4. We hand process our rice and we take only enough for eating not selling. 5. None of above. 6. License cost is ? For the casual ricer. 7. I have enough information. 8. I don't need more information. 9. Heck, I don't want everyone out there. 10. Less expensive license for non-resident who before retired lived in MN 55 yrs. 11. Help my partner lose 100 pounds. 12. 6 13. Don't know when will harvest again. 14. When lake is open. 15. License fee should be smaller or discontinued. 16. 1- Historical and indigenous techniques. 17. Contact list of individual harvesters who want partner, by county. 18. I have enough knowledge, contacts stem/don't need info. 19. I harvest for my own rice, I do not sell my rice. 20. 6 21. As with hunting/fishing I enjoy the challenge of ricing on my own. How to harvest and when to harvest would be important for someone starting without an experienced 22. partner.

23. None of the other info is anything I need. 24. DNR controls date big rice opening. Nothing in paper or news med. When ricing begins. 25. Lower the price of the license. It went up a few years ago, why? It's not the harvesters ruining the patties, 26. Needs an opening day that varies with conditions. 27. Its great how it is. A cheaper license. It is a huge amount of work. To much money for how much gets put back. 28.

29. Time 30. I check lake myself and know where to go. 31. Being able to gather rice on committee lakes. 32. The DNR used to send us a survey of all lakes that had wild rice. 33. 1. Local area informational meetings would be great!! 34. posting at public access when rice is ready 35. 1. Lower permit fee, or pro-rated fee based on how many pounds harvested. 36. Timing when to harvest w/weather and my time off. 37. Being able to rice until sunset would be huge. 38. A comprehensive book/study in how best to preserve the resource. 39. not having to get any license. 40. How to rice alone 41. Need local reports on ripening. 42. We know some local lakes, but want to avoid tribal areas.

119 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix L: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Information Needs, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Information that would Help to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

43. Reasonable fees for non-natives. 44. listing of lakes and status of rice that year. 45. How to process yourself (native way) 46. We can't afford to rice with license at $23.00 and gas so high. 47. Not important really 48. one license per canoe! 49. DNR should fly over beds and be avail to communicate 50. we only harvest enough for our personal use and process it ourselves 51. 1. Rice bed improvements water level controls 52. Too old 53. Time off work when rice is ripe. See #13 54. The state to regulate opening dates, post lakes. 55. No problem about the above list (expense only). 56. Current conditions and locations of rice lakes. 57. The cost of the license, reduce cost so small amount could be collected. 58. None of the above. 59. information is not an issue - cost of license is. 60. Higher prices. 61. Don't give out where to harvest locations please. 62. When I go it's for myself and I go traditional, I do not sell. Process list would be very helpful. Word of mouth right now. Some processors shut down early. 63. 64. I would rather information was not given out. 65. 4- How to process wild rice myself. There should be reduced price license after age 60. Also, 7am opening would help elderly because it would 66. be cooler. 67. I would feel somewhat nervous about the idea of publishing info on ricing location. 68. I like the 1854 Authority web site for rice info. 69. Have no problems with any of these. 70. 6 71. If big rice does not come back then finding rice on other lakes. 72. None of the above as I harvest only for my own use. 73. Lower the license fee. 74. Which lakes are open which days- eliminate confusion. 75. Have a 3-day license "residents" and lower the price. 76. License is too expensive for a 1-2 day junket. 77. We used to sell on the lake or on the street corner- no buyers anymore. 78. Web

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Information that would Help to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

79. Continued health. 80. None- I always check to see if it's ripe. 81. Neither.

120 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix L: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Information Needs, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Information that would Help to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

82. DNR must check lakes and rivers more often. Issue citations for ricing green rice. 83. When I run out. 84. Water accesses 85. Access to lakes. 86. I would like to have a processor within an hour of home. 87. Info on ricing boat suppliers. 88. physical challenge 89. I'm V.A. (100% disabled) but my partner works, so… 90. After 60 years of ricing I think mother nature is the one we have to deal with. 91. ok now. 92. I'm sure all of these would be important to me. 93. how to process 94. enough info already 95. carp and high water are destroying rice. 96. define what constitutes "green" rice 97. Too much green rice being picked due to no postings on lakes. 98. No problems 99. Ricing info need not be distributed by the DNR any more than blueberry patch info. 100. closing time and cost of license 101. Lower the license fee. 102. Better lake access "Scouting is harder every year (limited time) and I don't always go or get to the best (ripeness) beds". 103. 104. I feel that harvesters pick rice before it is ripe 105. Open lakes only when ripe not when their green. 106. A state web site like the 1854 treaty site with up. 107. Putting someone in charge that has been ricing instead of school boys. 108. 1- Weekly updates of ripeness by region on DNR web site. 109. Cheaper license. 110. conditions of rice beds in a timely manner or DNR web site. 111. Price would be the most important 112. clear bad weeds Proc list - put on web site or in handbook. Where-what lakes have harvestable wild rice. When-when is rice 113. ready on each particular lake. 114. To open lakes when they are ripe. 115. I do not need help finding rice or a processor. 116. None of these affect me, I'll rice until I'm too old to pole. 117. Time during season. 118. 1- Preventing genetic modification of wild rice. 119. Regulations and cost of license. 120. Longer hours. 121. Water level info and updates and scout reports. 122. Small processors 123. Learning more about how to process it ourselves. 124. 1854 web site good for areas covered- more complete list would be awesome.

121 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix L: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Information Needs, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Information that would Help to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

I will rice regardless. Most ricers these days with years of training. Just quit posting lakes unless it is a 125. reservation lake and C.O.s are properly trained to know rice. State C.O.s 126. laws to prevent lake destruction 127. Time and talents are the only limits. 128. List of lakes and how much they have on them. 129. See where I'm going with this. Help if you can. 130. 6 131. I consider myself quite experienced. 132. Other lakes through out state- (list) 133. rice ripen different time same location, and other location also. 134. the fee is excessive 135. I do not think 'where to harvest' should be published. 136. let people who do not live on the Reservation harvest on the Reservation. 137. Part of ricing is scouting. If the DNR provides this info, then good lakes may get crowded. 138. I'd like to have more information 139. What lake ripen early. 140. 1- Lower license fees. 141. we usually can find a buyer, but there seems to be fewer each year. none of these are relevant to an experienced ricer. Water level management (beaver control) limit shoreline 142. development & motor use. 143. How to keep from growing old. 144. where to get posting info. 145. I feel too many harvesters pick rice before it is ripe. 146. Again, be on top of things… 147. 6 148. green rice has to be protected. Lakes must be monitored and posted till ripe. 149. To teach people not to break stalks. 150. Do not need help 151. Paddy rice not being called wild rice. 152. None of the above matters- I will rice until I can't or I die. 153. Physical shape 154. None, this is primarily a personal challenge for me. 155. 1- Don't over promote resource- there's plenty people harvesting. 156. Some people break all the stalks. 157. Keep people from picking green rice and destroying the bed. 158. Make time easier. 159. Don't spend more money, 1-day subsistence license for $11.00. 160. How to do my own processing. 161. 5- Storage, recipes. 162. Clearly stated regulations given a long with license, including fines if disobeyed. 163. 3- Finding partner and right times with partners. 164. I have to drive to keep checking. 165. Lower the fee to coincide with the money spent on regulation. 166. Nothing 167. Age

122 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix L: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Information Needs, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Information that would Help to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

168. Clinics on "beating" technique. Some guys are truly amazingly quick. 169. None of the above. I will continue to rice and have the info I need. 170. 5 171. 1- list of who's paying the most per pound statewide. 172. Need no help. 173. License cost reduction. 174. For small amounts. 175. Don't need any info- need to scout yourself! 176. Not for me, nut some people brake over too many stalks. 177. I'm happy the way things are. 178. Weekly or seasonal license. 179. A good crop and good weather conditions. 180. Better manage rice beds on state land to prevent early harvest. 181. How to process. 182. More accurate lake conditions. 183. 7 184. 5- Accurate information from the MN DNR. 185. Processing info on building you own equipment. 186. Why did the cost of a license jump from $12.50 to 25.00 187. Who has the right to set the water elevations on a lake, managed by state government or others. 188. Leave laws as is!. 189. All ok. 190. Regulate water level on prairie lake. 191. Always looking for new spots not riced over in St. Louis and lake county. 192. Updated info at places that sell licenses. 193. The local harvesters know. 194. 1- Lower license price. 195. Lake access. 196. A list of lakes and approximate. Time that rice will be ripe. 197. What step are taken to get rid of carp. 198. The person who wants to harvest rice knows these things! 199. Reduction of license fee- it takes the 1st 50 lbs of green rice to pay for 2 licenses. 200. Buyers wanting to buy at decent price. 201. Lowering the cost of the license. 202. 1- More time sunrise to sunset. 203. Knowing where and when the rice is good each year is helpful. 204. We are just ricing for ourselves and to give for gifts. 205. Biggest problem, local DNR office (Bemidji) never knows anything if you call. 206. The ricing culture depends on secrecy and misinformation. 207. Save on gas 208. Don't tell where- let people search for their rice just like a blueberry patch. 209. Establish a web site on Lakes & crop outlook 210. Know it all hot line would help. 211. 1- lower license cost. 212. 1- Biggest info is closing time of 3:00 pm and cost of license.

123 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix L: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Information Needs, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Information that would Help to Continue Harvesting Wild Rice

213. Catch rice breakers. 214. Having the season open from 9 or 10 am to sunset would help. 215. See comment on attachment #1 question 16. 216. Amount on good H2O conditions. 217. Having proper equipment. 218. After 40+ years, I need little information. 219. Chair persons of lake unable to locate 95% of time. 220. Rice committee opens the season. 221. People should check rice themselves. 222. 6- Internet forecast-open dates. Example-1854 authority has limited forecasts. 223. Better price per pound on green rice. 224. Where to harvest- not a good idea- let people find their own rice beds. 225. 1- Lower the license for ricing back to $13/person. 226. Time- ricing before work or after (sunrise to sunset). 227. Put rocks back in outlet to original elevation since last glacier receded. 228. The more information you have the better. 229. Management on water levels. 230. Lake levels. 231. Raise water level- Big rice and Little rice.

124 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix M: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Resources to Deliver Information, 2007

125 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix M: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Resources to Deliver Information, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Resources to Deliver information 1. 6 2. Ricing is past on from older to younger people (knowledge). 3. 4. Coordinate w/ 1854 Authority web site 4. Put information in local papers. 5. 2 6. Current web site works well. 7. same thought as above 8. It would probably be more cost effective this way. 9. 6 10. Keep the same as is. 11. I don't need any further resources, thank you. 12. 6 13. Local paper updates, but a ricer does his own scouting. 14. 1- Information posted at local sports shop. 15. 1854 Treaty web site. 16. Being consistent with august 30 open date each year. 17. People should be taught in person how to care for rice and beds. 18. No computer, web site would not work for me. 19. 3- Hotline Must be real times on web site- especially due to varying dates and release to license holders. 20. 21. Email to license owners. 22. Internet 23. Sign at lake when it’s ok to rice. 24. your MN tourist letter with campgrounds and such 25. print out from license issuer? 26. bed condition on web site would be good. 27. 5. Coordinate w/ 1854 Authority web site. I wasn't aware that the DNR does anything to help wild rice stop the potential danger posed by introducing 28. genetic strains of rice that could cross-pollinate.

29. Sign age at collection sites, DNR web site. 30. Web site only 31. Should be published more in newspaper and TV. releases. 32. Mail or hand out when get license. 33. Phone call in line. 34. I drive bye lakes and don't know if its ripe or not 35. I don't believe a person should find out when rice is ripe by the media or DNR. 36. 6 37. 1854 web site. 38. Give to people who buy a license. 39. 3- local newspaper 40. Don't have computer. 41. Not everybody has a computer. 42. 1- Pamphlet at time of license purchase. 43. Hunting reg. Manual already has more than enough in it.

126 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix M: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Resources to Deliver Information, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Resources to Deliver information 44. 1- Co-operations with bands. 45. 3-Updates like deer season- area maps colored by yield expected-project dates.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Resources to Deliver information to 46. Have web site done by someone who has riced before. 47. 3- 1854 treaty release has been helpful. 48. Show people how to rice instead of beating down. 49. Keep web site better updated. 50. I believe the more informed the better. 51. Local papers. 52. Pamphlet available when attaining permit. 53. Sending to licensed harvesters. 54. Lakes should be published or posted at lake site when they’re ripe and opening. 55. Also throw in health info, recipes, a little history and biology. 56. There was no pamphlet of info or opening date info available at licensing sites. 57. This is the catch 22… not sure I want it to be too early. 58. List where the rice is and when it opens for harvest. 59. Treaty web site providing good information now. 60. 3- Something everyone will receive i.e.- mail 61. Already use 1854.org for updates and pictures. 62. 2- Mailing, radio, posting at lakes. 63. timing for harvest is trickier info to disseminate. 64. State should stay out of it and so should bands. 65. have a sign at land site and information most fair 66. 6 67. For crop reports, water levels, changes in DNR management. 68. TC- Bad idea unless taught by harvesters themselves. 69. 1- DNR assessment list of wild rice crops each year. 70. web site would be most up to the minute. 71. With emphasis on juveniles, especially Native Americans. The 1854 Authority does a good job of providing information for their area. Do something similar for the 72. whole state. 73. Mailed to the people who harvested the year before. 74. Many ricers have no WEB access or skills (live "off" the grid) 75. 4- aerial reports county by county. 76. knowing when and where is the challenge- don't ruin it with a web site 77. mailing list-send info to last years ricers 78. Like DNR web site, visit regular 79. I don't believe it's worth the cost. 80. have better information on when specific lakes will open rather than just signs at landings. 81. I teach at an Indian School. 82. Have a number to call at the Region Office to call for local openings. 83. congress 84. I do not think 'where to harvest' should be published.

127 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix M: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Resources to Deliver Information, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Resources to Deliver information to 85. mail to me I'm very interested. Is there a PBS TV program about wild ricing? A lot of work to produce, but would have lasting benefits. 86.

87. post landings. Perhaps I'm protective/selfish- word of good ricing gets out and "crowds" move in and take over. Most 88. local ricers "scout" sites and do their own homework. 89. 2- Possible wild rice interest group web site or blog. 90. Then mail pamphlet in #2 to people who purchased license last year. 91. Phone # district and regional office for information. 92. Make available aerial surveys of lakes. 93. Info released through county DNR agencies. 94. I would like to parch myself. Don't know how. 95. Somebody that knows all about ricing. Although I did not indicate anything in Q18, I think training and info in handbook would be good, 96. especially for proper respect for the rice. 97. 3- mail 98. To get other people to rice, DNR web site may be most effective? 99. If you are interested in maintaining interest in harvesting wild rice, lower the fee. 100. Very poorly accessible web site- ease of openings and status of ricing would be appropriate 101. I rely on local residents information of conditions. 102. Learn it from a friend. 103. 2- Check and post good lakes. 104. Maybe, mail a buyer list of name and phone numbers. 105. 1-800 information hotline. 106. News releases of training/classes would certainly increase interest in resource. 107. Web site or news release. 108. Supplied when you buy your license. 109. 6 110. 2- Email notices. 111. Leave natures, wild rice alone. No high breed seed is wild rice. 112. 1- email. 113. Need up to date info on alternative areas. 114. waste of money 115. Scheduling individual lake opening dates has been a farce. 116. too variable to be in handbook 117. Web site- Could offer current information. 118. Radio, TV, and newspapers in interested areas. 119. 2- Some kind of festival or day somewhere. 120. 2- 1854 Authority web site. 121. People who know how to harvest know. Part of the ricing experience is finding the rice and then getting (working to get) it- no help needed- then 122. everyone is thrashing the lakes down. 123. Pamphlet on wild rice, when purchasing harvest permit. 124. Hot line Harvesting reports posted on DNR web site. When people are starting to harvest at various locals. 125.

126. 1- 1854 Treaty Authority web site.

128 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix M: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Resources to Deliver Information, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Resources to Deliver information to 127. control, carp and water levels 128. lake residents being informed and prosecuted from destroying rice 129. Pamphlet listing buyers. 130. News- mailed to my house like this survey. 131. 1- Place to call for rice conditions locally! 132. Check on rice beds and see who did damage. 133. Email 134. 6- Web would be one but 90% of harvesters don't have internet. Info should be posted on web 135. 1- 800#- provided on the license, providing current conditions. 136. 4- An honest reply from game warden than white herring reply. 137. 1- waste of money- is this where are high buck license fees go? 138. In relation to open rice beds/hot line. 139. Recorded messages if person calls DNR. 140. DNR headquarters St. Paul or county seat.

129 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22

Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007

130 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 1. Please note my comments [in Word file] 2. 1- Proper management- post lakes. The state should take back the lakes to regulate. Also, start issuing tickets for harvesting green rice. (1854 sucks at management. 3. Open the season- stay out of the way- arrest people with green rice. The main problem is too high license fee- nobody controls the ricers that break stocks and will not stay out of green rice. 4. Possibly more carry-in sites. 5. Dear sir, I bought a license but I didn't harvest any rice due to it was too late and my age and health.

6. 1- Someone checking lake and posting lakes only opening them when the rice is ready. 7. 2- Access site availability, I.e. easements through private property. 8. 2- Access site availability- easements through private property. 9. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are equally important. 10. Access to some good rice lakes has been closed off weather legally or illegally by landowner around them. This has hurt our ricing over years. 11. I loved it, only went once, probably will never go again and thanks for the opportunity! 12. 6 13. 1- Management of "natural" wild rice. 14. 1- Save/restore big rice lake. Seeding- existing rice beds or historic extinct or likely looking new rice beds??

15. Don't let the U of M change genetics of natural wild rice or paddy rice please. 16. 1- Do not permit planting of non-native species as requested by U of MN and others. 17. Enforcement of regulations- There should be more of this for all fish, game, lumber, and rice. 18. 1. Protecting wild rice from Genetically Modified species!!! 19. Keep people out of the rice beds. 20. I don't see people breaking the law, only too many people beating green rice. 21. Water level management- This is why we didn't rice on 06' 22. Get state out of ruining rice by using water for Twin Cities. 23. We need a beaver bounty. All of my favorite lakes are flooded too deep. 24. Indian tribes close or restrict ricing on reservation waters until they have finished picking "state" (as they call it) waters. Stop this nonsense! All waters should be opened concurrently for everyone!!

25. Clean up of lakes of Broad leaf weeds. 26. Manage beds for wildlife, not rice harvest. 27. Resource protection 28. 1- Big rice lake was ruined in an attempt to rid it of arrowhead. In managing rice lakes- utilize the knowledge of ricers familiar with history of a lake. Get input from old timers. 29. Beaver control. 30. 7 31. Get Native Americans more involved, they know and think ricers respect their word. You didn't ask if we sell or eat our rice, my wife and I eat about 25 pounds a year. 32. 2- The areas I rice do not need to be managed. 33. 3- License price is high for short season/ for non-commercial gathers. 34. Let the rice stay native and unmutated. 35. I'm concerned about genetically engineered wild rice entering the "wild" strain of rice. 36. Thank you for 2nd chance. 37. On management of invasive species.

131 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 38. 1- Manage specific historical lakes as rice lakes 2 protection of wild rice. No motors, development, Ag., etc. adjacent. Knowledge and processors. 39. No airboats 40. 1- Management should: actively oppose research, growth, and release, and sales of genetically modified rice in MN and USA. 41. Whatever it would take to keep the rice beds. I think shoreline populations is going to be a problem.

42. Degradation of lakes that hold rice beds due to development if leech lake, squaw, bowstring, etc. Note- You should have left room for additional comments somewhere. Thanks 43. Get rid of the weeds- where there used to be rice, now full of weeds. 44. Vermillion river access is impossible and most of the other rice areas when the water is low. 45. Don't know enough about it to rank. 46. 4. Protect beds from Genetically Modified species! 47. Big rice lake in St. Louis county is being choked out with cabbage reducing wild rice. Find a way to eliminate cabbage. 48. I feel that keeping wild rice safe from genetic contamination via cultivated rice is very important. 49. 4- Conifers should be planted at the outlets of wild rice lakes to discourage use by beavers. 50. Don't raise the fee any higher. 51. Simply protect the environment/habitats. If you do that the rice is quite capable of the rest and you will not need to regulate water levels or seed, two activities more applicable to a domesticated rice paddy.

52. 1- Eliminate genetic modification and maintain ricing as traditional practice, or at least be absolutely sure GMO can't get into the wild strains. 53. Rice harvesting to me is recreation. In the 1950's you could make a weeks regular pay in one day. Today it’s a days work for a days pay. 54. 1- Legislature protection for wild stands from future genetically modified wild rice contamination. 55. Above all, keeping genetically modified rice out of MN and away from natural rice. 56. 3- Classes, techniques, self-processing etc. (statewide! Not just metro.) 57. 7 58. It seems there has been considerable difficulty maintaining water levels on Big Rice lake in St. Louis county. This greatly impacts my rice harvesting. Thank you. 59. Support 1854 Authorities wild rice monitoring program. 60. Do not improve access- it is not how many rice but how many get rice and not destroy the rice bed.

61. It sounds like you want more people to do it, yet have the same restrictions- I'm unsure of why you need them.

62. seeding? I've always heard wild rice grows naturally and can't be seeded or transplanted where it doesn't grow naturally - right? 63. 1. Insurance that genetically modified commercial rice does not affect wild rice. 64. Would like to know where this survey will end up. 65. 2- Education to public/harvesters about environmental awareness and care of rice areas/wild areas/creatures/water quality. 66. I have not had competition to rice, it would actually be nice to see more people try it out, they need to know how to do it. 67. I didn't realize anything was done other than selling permits. 68. Prevent removal of rice for docks, etc. 69. In that order would help a lot (thanks) BUB 70. Manage more lakes for rice, less for fishing and motorized recreation. 71. Don't know the issues. 72. Hi Ray

132 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2004-2005 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 73. Keep the power boats and jet skis a long way from beds. They destroy the beds at times deliberately.

74. water level is number 1 for wild rice, low water produces good rice and keep the ducks in MN. 75. Leave open at 15 July educate dumb@#*@ as to ripen. 76. You can’t rice if water is too low. Keep jet skis out and boats. Forget surveys- cost money to process, just lower licenses back down- best I think global warming will end wild ricing- beds will dry up. 77. 2- protection of rice beds and adjoining shorelands. 78. Fees seem to be excessively high. 79. license fee was doubled in 05 - why gouge the public for your lack of responsible spending. A 3 or 5-dollar increase would have been more responsible. 80. I believe that as an enrolled member of a MN Chippewa tribe, I should not need a license anywhere in the state. Strongly. 81. Gen. Modified research should not be allowed. Crowded lakes take much of the enjoyment of harvesting away- I will often not attempt to rice if others are on the beds. 82. Enforcement- Keep four wheelers especially and snowmobiles from ruining wetlands. Get Native Americans input in proper harvesting techniques. 83. 1- Beaver control. 84. No genetically modified rice anywhere.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 85. Natural water depths or optimum growing depth excessively on lakes with minimal access. 86. Support research at the U of M. 87. Doesn't this say it all? Or U of California Berkeley? Why did a canoe full of rice harvested in Crooked and Lawrence weigh less than 50 lbs? Mostly empty hulls. no pollination, too hot, insects? Please contact @ 885-3177 88. 1- Maintenance and improvement/reclamation of habitat. Thanks so much! Glad to see your interest. My partner and I are very "into" ricing and want to see adequate protection of the resources to ensure its longevity. 89. When ricing we seed too. 90. Why don't you make the fee more reasonable for those people who do not sell their rice. Think this over Mr. Norrgard and give me a call or email. Thanks Richard Thorpe 952-925-9404 or [email protected] 91. I believe the cost of a license has gotten out of hand. 92. Are you publishing your results? I'd be interested in learning how many rice for pleasure/how many rice to 93. I would say let nature control. Attempts to regulate water levels have only greatly increased weed growth. 94. seems to me it works the way it is. This survey is a good idea. 95. Are current zoning regulations. Destroying our rice beds/management-should include education and 96. Water level management has ruined rice crop on big rice. 97. Have noticed more littering at some accesses- flowage lake especially. 98. Keep unwanted vegetation out of the rice lakes- let mother nature determine the water levels.

99. We process our own, so lists of buyers and processors are of no value. 100. 7 101. 7. Lower cost of license I'm more likely to buy one if it looks like a bad year. It also looks like nothing is being done to manage wild rice. Need more info management is actually occurring. 102. Eliminate 'availability of information' Individual lake openings results in excessive pressure and damage. The only management I have seen successful has been beaver dam removal. [more comments in word file] 103. Regulate better. DNR has done a good job seeding new lakes and controlling water levels.

133 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 104. If the water levels are ok and the weather ok, the rice is good. 105. 1. Closing time and cost of license. See Word File for additional comments 106. post lakes until ripe - have a Sept 1st start date. 107. Access site improvement-Goose lake. 108. Thank you for doing survey. I am very happy to hear that the DNR is actively looking into how to best manage rice and harvest. 109. licenses are too expensive. Especially when rice has been knocked down three weeks early by idiots.

110. Right now the government is managing Iraq. 111. Minimal management- the more you mess with it, the more unnatural it becomes. Nature is doing a fine 112. not sure 113. 3. Reseeding extirpated stands. 114. See comment above. 115. Stop genetic contamination. Keep it Wild!! Thank you. 116. carp control 117. 5 118. Spend this money on knowing (when to open) the lakes that are ripe and keeping the ones that are green closed until ready. 119. Lower Resident License cost. Raise Non-resident License cost. Safeguard from paddy rice and genetically modified variants (from overtaking Native wild rice beds) 120. maintaining lakes and limiting development and loss of critical habitats. 121. People rice to early and wreck the rice stalks. Lakes need to be checked and posted until they are ready to harvest. 122. I prefer that you reduce the fee and do nothing. Enforce motorboat regulations and unauthorized access - especially 4-wheelers. Don't mess with genomes and natural processes. 123. beaver control. Additional comments in word file. 124. 1- No genetically modified "wild" rice anywhere. 125. developing better regulations as above and reduce license price. 126. 1. Monitoring and policing source point polluters in major ricing area. 127. C.O.s should enforce rules. Overall, I think things are working as well as can be expected. Hours and opening date are fine. Rice beds need tome to recover each day so sunset would not work. 128. Have a Sept 1 opening date or post lakes until rice is ripe. 129. $25.00 is to much to charge if you are not selling the rice. 130. C.O.s need to be versed on regulations esp. the exemption of flotation devices. 131. we must find a way to limit recreation development on our rice lakes. There’s too much unrestricted motor use on these lakes motor size should be limited. No jet skis. 132. 1- No genetically modified rice. 133. Carp problems magically corrected. 134. 1. Obtaining public access to rice lakes currently surrounded by private property. 135. DO NOT LET LAKE RESIDENTS DESTROY RICE 136. if state sells one a license, they must manage and train their people to do so. Otherwise they are left wide open for lawsuits. Train your C.O.s to know and deal with rice or stay out of it. Let ricers start the season. [See Word file for more] 137. [response to seeding] NO 138. 7 139. cont from #11d. When I asked Voyager's Park mgmt why they took away our rights to harvest rice in the park they said "to save for ducks/geese. This is asinine in my idea! I can be reached at 218-757-3130. Gary Germain, Intl Falls, MN

134 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 140. 3- CO should know the laws before sent out in field. 141. It would be nice to know that all of the $ is used for rice management. 142. Weed choked lake drainage are a problem, rice will not germinate if the water is too deep.

143. All are important. 144. Leave it alone, it will manage it self. 145. 1- To stop trying to change the genetics of wild rice for patty growers. It's time to focus on the natural beds before they are gone!! To seed with the seed that comes each lake only. 146. More important than all the priorities you suggest is the management of Wild rice fro waterfowl first!! People's harvest of rice should be secondary priority. 147. Restore Big Rice lake south of Tower in St Louis county. 148. Do not allow altering genetics of real wild rice! 149. 2- DNR should leave the rice beds alone! 150. Let mother nature manage it- let me keep my money. 151. I think a license to harvest wild rice should cost less for those people not interested in harvesting to sell.

152. Control lily pad and other aquatic weeds that take over a rice bed. 153. Water level on big rice lake so badly managed it is criminal. (St. Louis county) 154. 2- DNR scout to monitor and manage big beds like- Big Sandy, Mallard, Vermillion, Dean, etc.

155. Game Wardens should KNOW the rules and regulations. 156. I hunt, fish, and rice, to me ricers seem to be the most environmentally responsible self-regulators.

157. Funds should be used to hire Ojibwa people who would help protect the rice for the future!

158. Ray- keep up the good work! 159. 2- Wild rice habitat security from degradation (improper development/exotic plants, etc.) 160. 1- To keep it wild, and not mess with genetics. 161. We strongly oppose any release of genetically altered native rice. 162. Stop genetically engineered rice out of the wild. There is plenty of rice to go around. Little management is 163. We need to expand the rules of harvesting rice so it will exceed the minimum wages. 164. I would like notification on the up coming sessions of the wild rice advisory circle. 165. 2- Close water bodies until determined to be ripe. 166. 5- Open state parks to harvest/Naturalist programs. 167. Water level mgmt: yea sure, God works for you now? Other: educate public non ricers about ripe rice and recreational canoers. Any MN Guard or Reserve in country Bosnia, Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq should get free license for some time upon return. Iraq - lifetime free 168. 1. Blocking genetic modification. 169. Additional comments in Word file 170. All rice lake are different and should be treated as such. I think seeding would destroy the unique qualities of each lake. 171. Don't open lakes (rivers) until rice is ripe. This will provide rice for future years/ generations as well. Open 172. I would say if pamphlet was available- should explain a info on how to harvest, without damaging rice, where, how, when. 173. Whatever allows the continuations of wild rice growth. 174. 4- Conifers should be planted at the outlets of wild rice lakes to discourage use by beavers.

175. Hay creek and crooked lake are in need of repair.

135 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 176. Keep wild rice, wild forever. 177. Keeping motorboat out and away from rice beds. 178. River rice is very important with water level. 179. Swamp lake near Glen MN at one time was a great lake for wild rice. Now it has none. 180. listings of available public waters 181. More real time info between tribe and state. How much did this cost us. 182. See attached #1 question 20. 183. Water level management very important, mainly beaver control, dams (man made also).

184. 6- Enforce boat, jet skis, landowners who destroy water vegetation, wakes zone. Shorelines, stop genetic 185. 3- Get rid of the small lily pads that are killing of rice. 186. Let wild rice be wild, leave it alone! 187. Keep patty rice out of area. 188. Harvesting hours need to be enforced. Very little management needed- reduce license fees, the rice will take care of itself. 189. Over the years we have lost many rice beds North of Virginia in a relatively small area. Why?

190. It grows on its own and you don't do shit! 191. No preference. 192. I see no effective management- only conservation officers who nothing about wild rice, for those of us who love the outdoors and who have hands on knowledge- please leave this one activity alone. 193. Making postings where you can see them. Posting updated info. ASAP. 194. The "fee master" governor Pawlenty has raised the price of the license way out of line for a small harvester and for a non-resident. 195. Protection of habitat from other users of lakes and rivers i.e. wakes, property owners pulling it up etc.

196. The lily pads seem to be chocking out a lot of the rice over the years because of no muskrats to eat them.

197. Protection of native strains from UMN modified crop. 198. Thank you, this was the first year I harvested rice. I have a cabin on upper rice lake in Clearwater county. I wanted my 8-year twins to try it. We had a great time and they are looking forward to next year. C.O. Spauldung was a great help also. Thank 199. 4- I am strongly opposed to the genetic testing being done by the University of MN. 200. 6 201. With the few remaining ricers I don't feel state involvement is needed anymore. 202. The rest is fine. 203. Landings need improvement. 204. Big rice- water level management- disaster!! Ruined the rice crop. 205. None of the above. 206. Would not support using genetically improved seed. 207. Banning GMO rice is very important to me and to tribes. 208. Consider opening date by counties when rice is ripe. 209. Please feel free to call me at 218-697-2691. Jim Drake 210. I don't know enough about all of the aspects of ricing to really give my opinion. 211. To the best of my knowledge there is no management charge for the license- that's it. 212. $25 is too much for a license. 213. Habitat protection. 214. 1- Jerry Hove on Big Rice north of Virginia should manage that lake.

136 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 215. None 216. Keep the paddy rice and its genetic modifications out of our state. Please! 217. Making ricing license price more reasonable. It was doubled in one year, while the fishing license stayed much the same. Also, educating people about the difference between paddy rice and wild harvested. 218. Manage lakeshore properties that destroy habitat by chemicals, septic, mowing. 219. 4- leave it alone. 220. Some of our older rice lakes have more now, due to beaver dams. 221. There is a lot of rice in MN. I think the DNR does a good job protecting it. 222. 1- competing exotics. 223. It always reseeds, usually every other year is good. 224. 7- License cost is way out of hand. 225. Keeping genetic modified rice away from traditional wild rice. 226. I believe that rice paddies like Mallard; Dean should be (posted closed) by the DNR until they are ripe enough to pick. Pickers need to understand what green rice is and stay out of it. 227. 2- Rice has to be managed for wildlife, good harvester, clean environment. 228. You have fishing data on MN lakes why not ricing data. 229. No need for endorsement, very few harvest and there is no money in it. 230. Part of the mystique is the unpredictability of the crop and mucky landings. It's more gathering than harvesting. Don't change that. 231. Thank you for the survey. 232. Higher prices paid for green rice, average price for 30 years is $1.00 per pound of green rice.

233. I know one small lake here in turtle lake twp, Beltrami county that used to be full of rice/ducks- now nothing because of beaver dams. 234. Can DNR management, see #13. Native Americans do a good job of managing their lakes, let them run the whole show. PS I am a purebred Norwegian. 235. 1- Open the beds when they are ripe- designating an opening date but stating that green rice should not be picked amounts to an abdication of responsibility of the DNR. 236. 1- Preventing the cross contamination of GMO rice with natural wild rice. 237. Monitor who ever is messing with water levels. 238. It's been researched to death. Keep the test tube people away!! We seed it. Hard to beat Sandy and Federal camp ground (access site). 239. DNR officers taking away boats and rice from tribal members, when rice was harvested within res. Boundaries. 240. 1- Maintaining and improving rice lakes/rivers. 2- Getting rice back in historic rice areas. 241. Being able to harvest on tribal lakes, since natives can harvest on other lakes. 242. New access needed for moose lake St. Louis county. 243. Enforce ricing green rice! 244. Access site- listing the sites for public access vs. private property. 245. If there's low water, there's no way to get it. The water has to be high, but not over high, so it will be easy to pole. 246. 1- Keep university and research from tinkering with wild rice genetics and DNA. Do not allow hybridizing or fertilization of non-local ecotype seed. Do not allow paddy rice to be grown w/in 200 mile of native wild rice beds. 247. Thanks for your guys effort! No GMO rice please. 248. 14/20 Does history facts support early ripping season on drought years. 249. Establishment and enforce throughout plans/designations that prohibit development. Please don't make 250. 1854 Authority web site is an excellent resource, should have contributions from DNR.

137 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 251. Most wardens don't know anything about rice, if it is ripe or green. 252. Place to call locally for info. 253. No hybridizing, no mines dumping tailings into rice areas, motorboats speeding/creating wakes in rice beds.

254. Lobby against genetically modified rice. 255. 800# providing current rice conditions- would help to prevent destroying of unripened rice.

256. It was some what difficult to find specific info on ricing, such as length of rice stalks allowed, on your web site it was just by luck that I clicked on a photo that opened the ricing listings. Search was no help. 257. 2- Having enough harvesters is the most important management. 258. Only time you see a game warden is at this time more oppressing than wages. 259. 1- Habitat protection/ATV management and enforcement. 260. See #19 261. 1- Reduce "management"= reduced license fees. 262. Harvest for recreational purposes and personal use, processor for small amount would be helpful.

263. Labeling laws, don't allow genetic engineered rice to exchange into wild. 264. All ok. 265. My wife and I find a financial hard ship in the cost of licenses. Ricers are not the only beneficiary of rice beds, so are duck-hunters and rat trappers. Spread the financial burden. 266. Wild rice harvesters are mainly older people. Young people would rather buy processed rice instead of enduring repeatious, hot, dirty, wormy labor. 267. Restorations of old beds. 268. 2.5- Folks willing to help persons wanting to learn more- "hands on stuff". 269. 1- Harvesting the rice when it is ripe. To many people pounding of green rice. 270. 1- Habitat preservation (stop residential/commercial development on wild rice waters). Example: Becker county Teacraker lake- developer has made a applied for zoning etc. 271. Let nature take its course. You guys leave our lakes alone. 272. Prairie lake water level is not regulated well, the rice bed is being destroyed. 273. Fifty years of ricing and you ask questions like this- get with the program!!! Another license fee.

274. 1- More work clearing the lakes of carp. 275. I think much of the license revenue may get wasted? Where does the money go? Specifically I don't know. 276. Post lake when to open. 277. Awareness of rice quality, quantity. 278. Since April 1995 when lake was lowered 'big rice lake' has gone from a good to excellent wild rice, 279. Thanks for the survey. I do think the high license cost is prohibitive for many people. It has gone up a lot since Pawlenty and this is wrong. 280. 1- Habitat preservation (i.e. stop residential/commercial development on wild rice waters) Everything is 281. If to seed, you should seed with 5 to 10 different kinds of rice, the best rice for that lake will grow if any will. The biggest rice is not always the best tasting or the best growing. 282. Don't waste money, wild rice is very fickle, you can't change that. Moose pond D.U. project really helped. 283. 1- Lower the license fee. 284. Not site access- but some spot to unload and prep/rest. 285. What management! 286. I haven't seen the DNR do any management except take the inflated license fee! The best info is 1854 Authority. 287. 3- Support for the annual monitoring that the 1854 Authority conducts of rice lakes and rice production.

138 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey S-22 Appendix N: Wild Rice Harvester Survey Respondent Comments about Wild Rice Management Priorities, 2007.

2006 Wild Rice License Holders - Other Management Comments 288. 1- Restricting use of name "wild rice" on commercially planted/harvested beds and prevention of contamination of the wild rice by engineered commercial rice. 289. Not to be rude, but most pickers know more about harvesting rice than enforcement officials- for the most part oversee do not over enforce! 290. Seeding- no stop interfering with nature. In nature the rice not hybridizing the natural grain, outlaw paddy rice in MN. 291. I have been ricing for over 27 years. Leech lake enrolled member better enforcement of reg. To prevent early harvest by people who don't know what their doing. Better posting of rice beds better management of lake levels, where rice is harvested. 292. 3- Lakes seeded in the past on private lakes are useless if the private landowners refuse access to the water!

293. 19- web site: Have been using 1854 Authority web site for ripening info. Generally satisfied with site/info. Suggest you coordinating with 1854 rather than duplicate. 294. Get serious, money goes for B.S. projects not related to wild ricing. I you guys keep raising the cost of license. No one but the big harvesters will go ricing. Look at your increase for the last 5 years. Get serious. 295. Develop small lakes for rice and waterfowl. 296. Most people would buy a license as it is necessary to sell your green rice. 297. We pay way too much for licenses. 298. 7- Prevention of contamination from GMO's. 299. Youth involvement- 3 people per boat if under 12 year old is observing. 300. Remedy in wader species, a primary issue. 301. Kill the purple weeds. 302. water level mgmt and access improvements - I ranked them low as I'd like to see things kept as traditional as possible. 303. don't have an opinion 304. 4- Conifers should be planted at the outlets of wild rice lakes to discourage use by beavers.

305. 3- Keeping the paddy rice growers from using wild rice designation. 306. Not necessary. 307. Too many people try to rush things and harvest green rice with the July opening date. 308. Happy the way it is. 309. 2= training, classes. 310. 1- Fighting global warming: I think the biggest threat to all of our non-human relatives is climate change, including the rice. I support water level management only if it is natural, i.e. not creating more dams. We need less dams. 311. 1- No GMO wild rice allowed in the state of MN. 312. Let the general public know high breed seed all ripen same time, insecticides used, fertilizer used, and harvested with a combine. A domestic grain nothing wild about it. 313. Committee to work with law enforcement. 314. I have only attempted to harvest rice on one occasion, for one day, and therefore do not feel qualified to respond to this survey. I would like to harvest in the future; therefore I will answer what I feel I can.

139 Minnesota Wild Rice Harvesters Survey 350 Important Wild Rice Waters in Minnesota S-23

This is a list of 350 of the most important wild rice waters in Minnesota based on harvest, ecological, and/or cultural and historical values. Please note that all waters supporting wild rice are important, and a complete inventory of these waters in Minnesota is also maintained. The complete list of wild rice waters should be consulted when appropriate (considerations for zoning, surface water use, water quality and quantity, etc.). This list was compiled by the Wild Rice Management Workgroup, a coalition of federal, state, and tribal resource managers and other wild rice stakeholders. This list may be updated in the future as needed by the Workgroup. MPCA Note: This list does not include all the columns in the list obtained from the Wild Rice Management Workgroup. Information about the presence of wild rice has been combined into a single column. Information from deleted columns is indicated with an *. list updated 5/4/2010

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments

Aitkin White Elk 01014800 Rice thickest in south half of lake, band around north side. Aitkin Rice 01006700 Rice is located in varying degrees across entire basin. Aitkin Flowage 01006100 Can include almost complete coverage of south half of Rice can cover almost all open water in basin, some holes Aitkin Mallard 01014900 in Aitkin Aitkin 01004000 Around shoreline and outlet. Aitkin Shovel 01020000 Rice can cover almost entire open water area of basin. Aitkin Sandy River Lake 01006000 Aitkin Minnewawa 01003300 Rice east and northwest portions of the lake. Aitkin Twenty 01008500 Rice can cover almost entire open water area of basin. Aitkin Moose 01014000 Rice can cover almost entire open water area of basin. Aitkin Rat House 01005300 Rice can cover almost entire open water area of basin. Aitkin Big Sandy 01006200 Primarily in the Prairie River inlet flowage to lake. *Wild rice density is moderate (3), and its condition was Aitkin Moose River Pool 01035800 goo Aitkin Spruce 01015100 entire lake Aitkin Newstrom 01009700 Rice can cover almost entire open water area of basin.

Aitkin Salo Marsh State WMA Imp. 01041500 *Wild rice density is lush (4), and its condition was excelle Aitkin Mud 01019400 Around shoreline of basin. Aitkin Gun 01009900 NE bay.

Aitkin Section Ten 01011500 *Wild rice density is lush (4), and its condition was excelle

Aitkin Ripple 01014600 Located on east and west ends of lake, also acres on Ripple Aitkin Rock 01007200 Aitkin Moose Willow WMA - Willow Pool 01043100

Aitkin Unnamed - Little Willow River WM 01033200 *Wild rice density is scattered (2), and its condition was fa Aitkin Rice 01000500 Aitkin Waukenabo 01013600 Entire lake Aitkin Rat 01007700 Largest stand in the NE. Aitkin Elm Island 01012300 Primarily around inlet and outlet. Aitkin Sjodin 01031600 Most of lake except center Aitkin Red 01010700 Around shore Aitkin Section Twelve 01012000 SE and NE edges. Aitkin Prairie River 01r6 Aitkin Ripple River 01r3 S-23

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 9 W9001009 Anoka Carlos Avery WMA - Pool 3 W9001003 Anoka Hickey 02009600 Becker Big Basswood 03009600 Becker Chippewa 03019600 Becker Tamarack 03024100 Becker Rice 03020100 Becker Rock 03029300 Becker Little Flat 03021700 Becker Height Of Land 03019500 Becker Flat 03024200 Becker Rice 03029100 Becker Shell 03010200 Becker Hubbel Pond 03024000 Becker Spindler 03021400 Becker Big Rat 03024600 Becker Buffalo 03035000 Includes wild rice on Buffalo River. Becker Mud 03006700 Becker Schultz 03027800 Becker Abners 03003900 Becker Lower Egg 03021000 Becker Trieglaff 03026300 Becker Winter 03021600 Becker Booth 03019800 Becker Blackbird 03019700 Becker Mud 03002300 Becker Two Inlets 03001700 Becker Johnson 03019900 Becker Bush 03021200 Becker Little Basswood 03009200 Becker Carman 03020900 Becker Upper Egg 03020600 Becker Cabin 03034600 Becker Little Round 03030200 Becker Unnamed (Indian Creek impoundmen 03078600 Beltrami Big 04004900 NW & W bays. Beltrami Puposky 04019800 Beltrami Rabideau 04003400 Beltrami Bootleg 04021100 Beltrami Kitchi 04000700 Creek to Little Rice. Beltrami Manomin 04028600 Beltrami Pimushe 04003200 NW bay. Beltrami Three Island 04013400 Beltrami Rice Pond 04005900 Beltrami Burns 04000100 Beltrami Irving 04014000 NW bay. Beltrami Big Rice 04003100 Beltrami Moose 04001100 N. & SW bays. Beltrami Little Puposky 04019700 Beltrami Medicine 04012200 SW bay. S-23

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments Beltrami Little Rice 04001500 Around shoreline and inlet/outlet. Beltrami Erickson 04006800 Beltrami Cranberry 04012300 Beltrami Turtle River 04011100 Carlton Long 9006600 *rice along shore, thick in inlet and NW portion Carlton Tamarack River *good stands in several stretches Carlton Perch 09003600 Carlton Kettle 09004900 surveyed annually by 1854 Treaty Authority Carlton Miller 09005300 Carlton Rice Portage 09003700 Carlton Dead Fish 09005100 Carlton Jaskari 09005000 Carlton Moose Horn River 09r1 *wide slow section of river extending from Moose Lake Carlton Tamarack 09006700 Carlton Island 09006000 Carlton Tamarack Lake 9006700 *stands in narrows and in river Carlton Hay 9001000 *rice along shore, some denser areas/bays Carlton Wild Rice 9002300 *sparse rice over most of lake Carlton Little Kettle 9007700 *can have good stands over about three-fourths of lake Cass Leech 11020300 Bear I.; Blackduck & Grassy Pts; Boy, Federa Dam & Historic coverage of approx. 60%, best stands along north Cass Big Rice 11007300 an Cass Mud 11010000 Found over extensive areas of the lake. Third River flowage (500 acres), Raven flowage (450 Cass Winnibigoshish 11014700 acres), Cass Laura 11010400 Northern 2/3rds of main lake and east, south bays.

Cass Goose 11009600 In good years, almost 100% coverage of open water area. Cass Boy 11014300 Fairly continuous coverage in north bay and in a band Cass George 11010100 along Cass Lomish 11013600 Cass Rice 11016200 Cass Gull River 11r1 It was found along the river channel throughout the Cass Rice (Pillager) 11032100 Wild rice stands can occupy up to 80% of basin area. Cass Lind (Lindsey) 11036700 Cass McCarthey 11016800 Cass Farnham 11051300 25% in an average year to 100% in a good year. Cass Six Mile 11014600 Cass Washburn 11005900 Cass Brockway 11036600 Cass Woman 11020100 Cass Swift 11013300 Cass Chub 11051700 Cass Twin 11012300 Center and eastern portions of basin, lily pads dominated Cass Lower Hand 11025100 we Cass Lizotte 11023100 Wild rice can over a majority of basin in a good year. Wild rice can completely cover open water portion of Cass Rice (Carrol's) 11022700 basin. S-23

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments Cass Big Birch 11001700 Cass Pine Mountain 11041100 Cass Hattie 11023200 Fair band along shoreline. Cass Beuber 11035300 Cass Island 11010200 In various bays. Cass Drumbeater 11014500 Cass Moose 11042400 Practically no rice present. Cass Portage 11047600 Clearwater Lower Rice 15013000 Clearwater Upper Rice 15005900 Clearwater Pine 15014900 Clearwater Mud 15006100 wide band of rice around most of lake except pars of the Clearwater Unnamed 15002100 Clearwater Minerva 15007900 Clearwater Sucker 15002000 Clearwater Clearwater River 15r1 *52 acres in 1998, less in 99-01, typically sparse to fair Cook Marsh 16048800 coverage Cook Swamp River 16090100 Cook Northern Light 16008900 Cook Elbow 16009600 Cook Rice 16045300 Cook Kelly 16047600 Cook Moore 16048900 Cook Fourmile 16063900

Cook Mark 16025000 *can have good rice over most of lake, used by harvesters Cook South Fowl 16003400 *moderate to dense patches of rice Cook North Fowl 16003600 *moderate to dense patches of rice Crow Wing Lower Dean 18018100 Wild rice can completely cover basin. Crow Wing Platte 18008800 Wild rice located in NW bay, around shoreline. Crow Wing Duck 18017800 Wild rice can completely cover open water portion of basin Wild rice densest in northern 2/3rds of basin, around Crow Wing Rice (Deerwood) 18006800 shore Crow Wing Rice (Hesitation WMA) 18005300 Wild rice densest in western 2/3rds of basin.

Crow Wing Rice (Clark Lake) 18032700 Wild rice can completely cover basin, open in the middle. Wild rice located around east, north and outlet portion of Crow Wing Lizzie 18041600 b Crow Wing Garden 18032900 Wild rice denest along east shore and north bay. Crow Wing Nelson 18016400 Wild rice located in west half of lake. Crow Wing Hole- in-the-Day 18040100 Wild rice is densest in northern 2/3rds of basin. Crow Wing Rice (Pratt's) 18031600 Wild rice can completely cover basin. Crow Wing Unnamed (Lost Rice) 18022800 Wild rice can completely cover basin.

Crow Wing Dog 18010700 Wild rice is found throughout the lake area in stands of var Crow Wing Pine 18026100 Wild rice located along east shore, Pine River channel. Crow Wing Mud 18032600 Wild rice can cover a majority of open water basin. Crow Wing Rice (Blomberg's) 18012100 Wild rice was found throughout the open water area of S-23

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments Wild rice can cover a majority of open water portion of Crow Wing Terry 18016200 basi Crow Wing Upper Whitefish 18031000

Crow Wing Lower Mission 18024300 Wild rice density was scattered to moderate (2 to 3), and it Crow Wing Smith 18002800 Wild rice located in NW bay, west and east shorelines. Crow Wing Rice Bed 18018700 Wild rice can completely cover basin. Crow Wing Lows 18018000 Wild rice located around outlet (NW) and inlet (SE). Crow Wing Twentytwo 18000800 Wild rice located along NW and SE shoreline. Crow Wing Twin Island 18010600 Wild rice can cover a majority of open water basin. Crow Wing Whipple 18038700 Wild rice exists primarily in lower basin (Moberg's Slew). Crow Wing Arrowhead 18036600 Wild rice in SE corner/outlet to Whitefish Lake and NE Wild rice can completely cover open water portion of Crow Wing Unnamed (Nokasippi R. Rice Bed) 18048500 basin. Crow Wing Mud 18013700 Wild rice located in western 2/3rds of basin. Crow Wing Birchdale 18017500 History of almost complete basin coverage, outlet Crow Wing Little Pine 18017600 History (1960s) of harvestable stands in NE &SW corners of Crow Wing Dahler 18020400 Wild rice located around shoreline. Crow Wing Google 18022300 Wild rice along outlet and outlet river channel. Crow Wing Middle Cullen 18037700 Crow Wing Mississippi River 18r1 Hubbard Mantrap 29015100 Hubbard Fourth Crow Wing 29007800 Hubbard Hart 29006300 Hubbard Garfield 29006100 South bay Hubbard Island 29025400 Hubbard Rice 29017700 Hubbard First Crow Wing 29008600 Hubbard Upper Mud 29028400 Hubbard Third Crow Wing 29007700 Hubbard Lake George 29021600 Hubbard Lake Alice 29028600 Hubbard Crow Wing 29011600 Hubbard Spring Lake 29005400 Isanti Upper Rice 30005700 Itasca Natures 31087700 Can cover a majority of basin in good years. Itasca Bowstring 31081300 Cow, Grouse and Muskrat bays. Itasca Rice 31087600 Itasca Pigeon Dam 31089400 Itasca Bass 31057600 Itasca Cut Foot Sioux 31085700 Itasca Blackwater 31056100 Itasca White Oak 31077600 Eastern half of basin. Itasca Mud 31020600 Itasca First River 31081800 Itasca Rabbits 31092300 Itasca Little Cut Foot Sioux 31085200 Itasca Pokegama 31053200 Primarily in Little Pokegama bay. Itasca Dora 31088200 Itasca Helen 31084000 S-23

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments Itasca Raven 31092500 Itasca Dixon 31092100 Itasca Decker 31093400 Itasca Spruce 31034700 Itasca Swan 31006700 Itasca Blackberry 31021000 Itasca Sand 31082600 Itasca Nagel 31037700 Itasca Prairie 31038400 Itasca Prairie 31005300 Itasca Mississippi River 31r6 Itasca Big Fork River 31r3 Itasca Bowstring River 31r4 Koochiching Nett 36000100 Koochiching Rat Root 36000600 Lake Basswood 38064500 Black, Hoist, Rice, and Wind bays. Lake Stony 38066000 Lake Garden 38078200 Lake Rice 38046500 Lake Bonga 38076200 Lake Wood 38072900 NE Bay and Madden Cr. Bay lush, other areas scattered. Lake Hula 38072800 Rice lush in bay by portage coming from Wood Lake. Lake Lobo 38076600 Lake Muskeg 38078800 Lake Round Island 38041700 Can completely cover basin. Surveyed annually by 1854 Lake Campers 38067900 Can cover a majority of basin. Surveyed annually by 1854 Lake Cramer 38001400 surveyed annually by 1854 Treaty Authority Lake Cabin 38026000 Can cover a majority of basin. Surveyed annually by 1854 Lake Sand 38073500 Lake Snowbank 38052900 Lake Island River 38084200 Lake Dumbbell 38039300 Lake Clark 38064700 Lake Cloquet 38053900 Lake Greenwood 38065600 *good stand on N end, rice coverage on S end also Lake Farm 38077900 *fair potential in some areas?, no field data Lake Moose 38003600 *rice coverage over most of lake *moderately dense on N end, along shore, about 1/4 Lake Gegoka 38057300 covered Lake Hoist 38025100 *typically one-half to completely covered with rice Lake Hjalmer 38075800 *rice over about three-fourths of lake Lake Middle McDougal 38065800 *one-third to three-fourths coverage Lake Phantom *57-58N, 10W - most of lake covered Lake of the Woods Roseau Flowage 39IMP001 Lake of the Woods Rainy River 39r5 Lake of the Woods Winter Road River 39r4 Mille Lacs Onamia 48000900 Mille Lacs Ernst Pool 48003600 *Wild rice density is lush (4), and it conditions was fair (2 Mille Lacs Dewitt Marsh 48002000 Morrison Skunk 49002600 Throughout lake. S-23

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments Excellent coverage at spots along shoreline in Rice Lake & Morrison Rice 49002500 n Morrison Twelve 49000600 Morrison Coon 49002000 *common Otter Tail Ottertail River 56r1 Otter Tail Lake Sixteen 56010000 Otter Tail Star 56038500 *historic rice camp Pine Crooked 58002600 Pine Hay Creek Flowage 58000500 Pine Willow River 58r1 Rice Mud 66005400 Scott Fisher 70008700 Scott Rice 70002500 Scott Blue 70008800 Sherburne Orrock 71IMP010 Sherburne Rice *good rice crop in 2009 Sherburne Schoolhouse Pool 71IMP009 Sherburne Josephine Pool 71IMP008 *lake can be about one-half covered, some use by St. Louis Knuckey 69080000 harvesters St. Louis Lapond 69017700 St. Louis Big Rice 69066900 Throughout lake, typically open in the center. Surveyed

St. Louis Seven Beaver 69000200 Best rice is located in the narrows and south bay of lake, b St. Louis Crane 69061600 St. Louis Vermilion River 69061300 surveyed annually by 1854 Treaty Authority St. Louis Big Rice 69017800 No thick beds of rice this year with rice across most, also St. Louis Butterball 69004400 called Long St. Louis Birch 69000300 Can completely cover basin. Surveyed annually by 1854 St. Louis Little Rice 69061200 Treaty Auth

St. Louis Hoodoo 69080200 Rice found over the entire lake at various densities from ra St. Louis Vermillion 69037800 St. Louis Sturgeon 69093900 St. Louis Stone 69004600 surveyed annually by 1854 Treaty Authority Can completely cover basin in good years. Surveyed St. Louis Breda 69003700 annually by 1854 Treaty Auth St. Louis Bear 69011200 St. Louis Sandy 69073000 *historic good crops, (Twin Lakes) St. Louis Pelican 69084100 St. Louis Hay 69057900

St. Louis Shannon 69092500 Best rice located at outlet of lake with some fringe rice on St. Louis Leeman 69087500 St. Louis Little Sandy 69072900 *historic good crops, (Twin Lakes) St. Louis Stone 69003500 also called Tommila Lake St. Louis Canosia WMA, Angell Pool W0889001 St. Louis Hay 69043500 *little rice in 2009- Barr Eng (PolyMet) S-23

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments St. Louis Low 69007000 *only sparse rice plants in 2002 St. Louis Hockey 69084900 St. Louis Moose 69079800 St. Louis Turpela 69042700 St. Louis Bug 69053100 St. Louis Wabuse 69040800 St. Louis Dollar 69053400 St. Louis Hay 69041700 Best stand is on the east end of lake with the rice continui St. Louis Mud 69079700 St. Louis Rice 69057800 Good rice bed across lake and downstream. St. Louis Washusk Number One 69040900 St. Louis Rainy 69069400 St. Louis Wolf 69014300 St. Louis Saint Louis River 69r2 *headwaters, Norway Pt, historic in estuary St. Louis Pike River 69r1 St. Louis Burntside 69011800 *fair potential in some areas?, no field data *thicker rice in narrows and back bays, around 20% St. Louis Anchor 69064100 coverage *64N, 13W - fair potential for rice?, no field data, BWCA St. Louis Rice 69018000 lake St. Louis East Stone 69063800 *can be half covered with good density St. Louis Little Indian Sioux River *66N, 15W - good stands along banks, used by harvesters *can have thick rice over entire lake, some use by St. Louis Papoose 69002400 harvesters *56N, 12W - thick rice in areas, used by harvesters into St. Louis Petrel Creek Breda L St. Louis Sand River *60N, 16W - can contain good stands St. Louis Washusk #2 *55N, 15W - rice along shore, sparse in center St. Louis Partridge River *58N, 14-15W - number of stands with good density *64N, 19W - can have thick rice over entire lake (2007, St. Louis Rice 2008) Stearns Tamarack 73027800 island clumps throughout

Todd Long 77006900 Typically thickest in north portion of lake, more spotty in

Todd Mud 77008700 Rice typically around shoreline, can cover almost all of ope Todd Twin 77002100 Todd Rogers 77007300 Typically in a wide band around shoreline. Todd Nelson 77000500 Entire lake. Todd Rice 77006100 Most of rice on south end where connected to Thunder

Wabasha Zumbro River *Zumbro Bottoms, McCarthy Lake - acreage, wildlfie value

Wadena Yaeger 80002200 Entire lake, best stands are located on west side & across t Wadena Burgen 80001800 Covers 93% of water area. Wadena Strike 80001300 1988: sparce rice. 1963 100% covered. Wadena Round 80001900 Wadena Granning 80001200 Entire lake. Wadena Blueberry 80003400 *historic wild rice camp Waseca Everson 81002700 S-23

County Basin Name Dow No. WR comments Waseca Lilly 81006700 Wright Sandy 86022400 Entire lake.