rh‘namaA;

-g..‘»‘m_ - . 42+. *9“:!R,':~€ ' m s
glw‘,’ «S23 !.‘x.§-\1R:£d‘t 2 3V 2‘15": V3.35“; ‘1’: 4 an: I EV'
3- -9‘ 9 ‘ ”‘9'" M” 5 ”‘11 fix " f‘f‘\f ..

‘3. 31%;} \ff grin-$3 My :31. 3%; .. .3336: REE. €3.33.)

3:2? 33:23“ gamma :2!”

1.3x? $3”??? #3433 3‘33!

“$5333; .5.
'3‘

‘£~
&

‘lilh '5‘ J;

95.61:“

~‘~. .0“: .

393?

TH EBII

 

L I B R .4 13.. Y 3

‘ .
I‘.<11(.‘;:!.~:;m and

U 11 i v c may

A PROPOSED RECREATIONAL CLASSIFICATION
FOR THE LAKES OF JACKSON
COUNTY MICHIGAN
By

Richard N. Horner

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Agriculture
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1959

Richard N. Horner ABSTRACT

The intent of this study was to inventory and inves-
tigate characteristics of lakes in Jackson County, Michigan
in order to classify such lakes for purposes of analysis and
planning for recreational use.

Many lake classifications have been developed that
reflect purely physical, biological, or chemical character-
istics of the lake classified. A primary goal of this
investigation was to correlate various geographical factors
and conditions with evidence of existing lake use obtained
from field observations. The observations of overall rec-
reational use were limited to certain primary recreational
pursuits common to numerous lakes.

From an analysis of these factors and the observed
intensity of primary recreational uses, criteria were
selected that formed the basis for classifying the lakes

inventoried into three types as follows:

Class I Less than 50% swamp or marsh and sparse
to moderate aquatic vegetation in the
shoal.

Class 11 Greater than 50% swamp or marsh and

sparse to moderate aquatic vegetation
in the shoal, or

Less than 50% swamp or marsh and abun-
dant aquatic vegetation in the shoal.

Class III Greater than 50% swamp or marsh and
abundant aquatic vegetation in the shoal.

iii

Richard N. Horner ABSTRACT

The classification developed reflects the natural
character and preSent extent of use or potential use of the
lakes inventoried. The Class I lakes typically provide the
greatest overall recreational use or potential, while the
Class III lakes provide the lowest overall use or potential.
The characteristics of Class 11 lakes are intermediate
between those of the low and high use classes.

The classification developed should prove helpful
in planning and zoning studies for any lake and in deter-
mining which lakes Offer the greatest potential for future

development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The writer eXpresses appreciation to Dr. Clifford
R. Humphrys of the Department of Resource Development,
Michigan State University, who provided the incentive for
this study. Acknowledgment is also due to Dr. Robert C.
Ball of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan
State University, for helpful criticism, and to the many
individuals who, in the course of the field work, allowed

access to their private property.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem
Justification . . . . .
Limitations of the Study
Definition of Terms

STATUS OF THE PROBLEM . .
Review of Literature . .
Statement of Purpose

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . .
Sources of Data . . .
Inventory Procedure
Treatment of Findings

REPORT OF THE STUDY

Scope . . . . . . .
Area Description . . .
Data Presentation . . .
Analysis of Data . .

Classification Criteria
Classification Use . .

SIJLIMA RY O 0 O O O O O O O

BIBLImRAPI-H O O O O O O O O C 0

APPENDIX A.

APPENDIX B.

vi

Lake Inventory Schedule

Maps and Additional Tables

‘DCDGIUN

10
10
10
11
12
12
12
22
39
43
45
48
49
54

57

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
I. Lakes Inventoried and Classified . . . . . . . 13
11. Existing Lake Development . . . . . . . . . . . 23
III. Lake Area in Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
IV. Maximum Depth in Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
V. Length of Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . 26
VI. Shore Development Index . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
VII. Approximate Per Cent Shoal . . . . . . . . . . 29

VIII. Approximate Per Cent of Shoreline Border in

Swamp or Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
IX. Abundance of Marginal Aquatic Vegetation . . . 32
X. Average Per Cent Slope to Five Foot Depth . . . 36
XI. Maximum Depth - Surface Relation . . . . . . . 38

XII. Classification of 48 Lakes in Jackson County . 46
XIII. Ownership Status of Lakes Inventoried and

Classified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
XIV. Jackson County Lakes Planted with Trout . . . . 62

XV. Jackson County Water Resource Data . . . . . . 63

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE
1. Mud Lake, Low Overall Recreational Use . . . . .
2. Clark Lake, Intensive Overall Recreational Use .
3. Major Drainage Basins of Jackson County . . . . .
4. Farwell Lake, Marl Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Little Portage Lake, Shoreline . . . . . . . . .
6. The Lime Lakes, Formed from Marl Excavations . .
7. Walter J. Hayes State Park Beach . . . . . . . .
8. Schoolhouse Lake, Low Overall Recreational Use .
9. The Portage River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. Round Lake (155A.), Sparse to Moderate Aquatic
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ll. Crispell Lake, Sparse to Moderate Aquatic
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. Swains Lake, Sparse to Moderate Vegetation . . .
13. Little Cranberry Lake, Abundant Vegetation . . .
l4. Walz Lake, Abundant Vegetation . . . . . . . . .
15. Goose Lake, Abundant Vegetation . . . . . . . . .
l6. Horseshoe Lake, Low Water Level . . . . . . . . .
17. Brill Lake, Intermittent Drainage Characteristics
18. Pink Lake, Low Overall Recreational Use . . . . .
19. Trail to Pink Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

PAGE

17
18
18
19
19
21
21

33

33
34
34
35
35
4o
4o
42

42

LIST OF MAPS

MAP PAGE
1. Location of Lakes Inventoried and Classified . . . 58
2. Public Ownership in Jackson County . . . . . . . . 59
3. Lake Inventory lap, Swains Lake '. . . . . 60

ix

I. THE PROBLEM

Statement‘gf the Problem.

The intent of this study was to inventory and inves-
tigate characteristics of lakes in Jackson County, Michigan
in order to classify such lakes for purposes of analysis and

planning for multiple recreational use.

Jgstification.

The wise and continued use of water resources will
be taxed to the utmost in future years. This premise is
based on (1) increased leisure time due to shorter work
weeks and more paid vacations, (2) demand for more and
better recreational facilities, (3) an increasingly large
population, and (4) a higher investment cost in recreational
development. Social trends such as these do not indicate a
diminution in lake use.

Various types of lake classifications have been
developed for specific purposes--usually biological or phys-
ical. Little work has been done in an attempt to reflect
the overall characteristics of a lake as a guide to the
planning and development of such a resource. While few
lakes are precisely identical in character, there are certain
factors that tend to limit the natural ability of a lake to

sustain various uses. This study was undertaken in order to

identify those limiting factors which determine the use

capability of a given lake.

Limitations gfi the Study.

The nature of this inquiry was primarily geograph-
ical. A reconnaissance type survey of selected lakes in
Jackson County was performed, and the analysis of collected
data resulted in the proposed classification system. The
classification developed reflects the natural character and
present extent of use or potential use of the lakes inven-
toried.

Generally, the following items form the primary
basis for recreational lake use in Michigan today: (1)
boating, (2) camping, (3) cottage development, (4) fishing,
(5) picnicking, (6) swimming and wading, and (7) hunting.

An attempt was made to relate these factors to lakes not
utilized to their maximum potential. The seventh factor,
hunting, while singularly important to overall lake use in
some areas, was of minor significance in the study area. As
a result, this factor was not stressed in the investigation.

The development of the classification system was
based on the evidence of primary recreational uses mentioned.
While many other recreational pursuits were recognized, they

were not considered to be of primary importance to overall

lake use in Jackson County.

Definition 9_f_ M.

Certain definitions were adopted so as to eliminate
ambiguity and vagueness and to establish the proper frame-
work of meaning intended in the discussion.

Bog 1ake--An area of open water commonly surrounded
either wholly or in part, by true bog margins; possessing
peat deposits about the margins or in the bottom or both;
usually with a false bottom composed largely of very finely
divided, flocculent, vegetable matter; containing consider-
able amounts Of colloidal materials; and so constituted
genetically that in time it may become completely occupied
by bog vegetation.

 

Lake--A body of standing water occupying a basin and
lacking continuity with the sea.

Marl—~An earthy deposit of calcium carbonate commonly
mixed with clay and other impurities.

Marsh-~Flat, wet areas covered dominantly with
grasses or other herbaceous plants.

Muck--Highly decomposed organic soil material
developed from peat.

Peat-~Unconsolidated soil material consisting
largely of undecomposed or only slightly decomposed organic
matter accumulated under conditions of excessive moisture.

Pond-~A small, shallow body of standing water in
which reIatively quiet water and extensive plant occupancy
are common characteristics.

Shoal~-The area of water less than twenty feet in
depth.

Swamp-~Flat, wet areas covered dominantly with
woody vegetation.

1Paul S. Welch, Limnology (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1952), p. 384.

2F. A. Forel, Lg Lgman. Monographie Limnologique.
(Lausanne, Switzerland, 1892).

Public lake--Any lake which is accessible to the
public via publiE owned lands, waters, or highways contig—
uous thereto, or via the bed of a navigable stream and
which may be used for navigation, fishing, hunting or other
lawful purpose and reasonably capable of supporting a
beneficial public interest.

 

Priv te lake-~Any inland lake other than a public
inland laEe.g

Semieprivate lake--A lake ordinarily private, but
having access by permiss10n of or payment of fee to the
riparian owner.

The following terms were compiled in order to des-
cribe existing lake development:

Undeveloped--No commercial or residential structures
other than docking facilities present; lake may be used for
fishing, hunting, swimming, and other purposes.

 

Low development-~8cattered residential structures
may be present; no commercial structures other than docking
facilities and camp grounds present;-lake may be used for
fishing, hunting, swimming, and other purposes.

 

Moderate development--Many residential structures;
commerciaI structures, including docking facilities and camp
grounds, may be present; lake is used for various recre-
ational purposes.

 

Full development--Nearly all usable shoreline
cottage and camp Sites are developed; various commercial
structures are present; evidence of public services such as
schools, post offices, fire stations, and community halls
may be present; multiple tier or concentric develOpment
outward from the shoreline may exist; lake is used for
various recreational purposes.

 

Intensive development--Competition exists for less
desirable cottage and home Sites; multiple tier or concentric
development outward from the shoreline exists; numerous
public services are provided; many commercial enterprises
exist; lake is used for various recreational purposes.

 

 

3Comp. Laws. Michigan, 1948, Sec. 281.201.

 

41bid., Sec. 281.202.

 

Figure 1. Small rowboats, crude docks, abundant aquatic
vegetation, and organic soil types--evidence of low
overall recreational use, north end of Mud Lake.

 

Figure 2. Intensive overall recreational use evidenced
by a well defined bank and shoreline, a variety of
water craft, and a lack of dense aquatic vegetation,
east end of Clark Lake.

II. STATUS OF THE PROBLEM

Review 2: Literature.

A great many classifications have been developed
that tend to reflect specific characteristics or biOIOgical
productivity of a lake. Among these are the classification
of Forel and Whipple based on thermal conditions and water
stratification and the eutrOphic, oligotrophic, and dys-
trophic types established by Thienemann and Naumann that
are related to biological productivity. Both of these
classifications are aptly described by Welch.l

A drainage classification developed by Pennak con-
sists of three classes: drainage lakes Whose inlets and
outlets are active throughout the year, semi-drainage lakes
whose inlets and outlets function intermittently, and seep-

2 "This classification

age lakes without inlets and outlets.
reflects the rate at which water moves through the lake and
the rate of influx of dissolved salts from the watershed.

This rate is believed to be highest in lakes connected with

 

1Paul S. Welch, Limnology (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 19525, pp. 63 and 343.

 

ZRobert w. Pennak, "Some Aspects of the Regional
Limnology of Northern Colorado," University 9£.Colorado
Studies, Series D, 2:263-293, 1945.

large streams and lowest in those whose levels are main-
tained by the 51 w seepage of ground water."3

Several classifications have been proposed that
reflect the existing and potential use of shoreline areas.
These classifications are based primarily on physical char-
acteristics of the shoreline such as slope, type of material,
and evidence of erosion. Such is the shorezone inventory
system developed by Jewell,4 and the lake shore inventory
and classification reported by Bowers, McMurry, and Stahl.5

Similar to these two studies, but having additional
information relative to the multiple use of shoreline areas,
are the shoreline surveys of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
conducted by the National Park Service,6 the county shore-

type bulletins by Humphrys, Hornet, and Rogers,7 and the

 

3Frank P. Hooper, "Some Chemical and Morphometric
Characteristics of Southern Michigan Lakes," Pa ers of the
Michigan Academy_of Sci nce, Arts, and Letters, 311:109-130,
1956.

 

 

 

4William F. Jewell, "A System of Inventory for the
Shorezones of the Great Lakes" (unpublished Master' 5 thesis,
Michigan State College, East Lansing, 1947).

5Neal M. Bowers, Kenneth C. McMurry, and Katherine
M. Stahl, "Lake Shore Inventory and Classification," Pa ers
of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, g7.

 

6Our Vanishing Shoreline (A Report by the United
States Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
195 ).

 

7C. R. Humphrys, R. N. Horner, and J. H. Rogers,
Shoret e Classification of Van Buren County, Michigan
(Shoretype Bulletin No. 2. East Lans1ng: Michigan State
University, Department of Resource Development, 1958).

recreational site study of selected lakes in washington and
Idaho reported by Booth.8 These three studies were con-
cerned with cultural characteristics and positive recreational
values as well as physical site characteristics.

Lakin has proposed a legal classification of waters
into seven types for the purpose of assuring the greatest
public and private use.9 This classification takes into con-
sideration the general public welfare, existing and future
economic benefits, and recreational uses. The classification
is intended to facilitate the administration of state water
resources by government agencies.

As part of a broader study of physical factors and
land use in two Michigan counties, Humphrys classified 262
lakes on the basis of area, shape, maximum depth, bottom
type, per cent shoal, vegetation, fish species, inlets and
outlets, and water character.10 This classification was

formulated primarily to delineate the lakes on the basis of

 

8Alfred W. Booth, The Lakes 2: the Northeastern
Inland Em ire (Bulletin No. 5. Pullman, Washington: State

College 0 Washington, School of Economics and Business,
1948).

 

 

9H. D. Lakin, "Proposed Stream Classification Law
for Michigan" (unpublished paper, Michigan State University,
Department of Resource Development, East Lansing, March 20,
1957). (Mimeographed.)

10Clifford R. Humphrys, "The Evaluation of Physical
Factors in Relation to Land Use: A Study of Gogebic and
Ontonagon Counties, Michigan" (unpublished Ph. D. thesis,
Michigan State College, East Lansing, 1952), pp. 114-125;
234-235.

their natural characteristics, however, the utilitarian
properties of the lakes were not evaluated and correlated

with the selected classification criteria.

Statement 2: Purpose.

Owing to the stress on purely physical classifi-
cation in previous investigations, it was the purpose of
this research to more fully evaluate and correlate cause
and effect relationships of selected geographical factors

and observed recreational lake use.

III. METHODOLOGY

Sources.gf.gg£a.
Various sources of information were used during the
study. Several types of maps proved invaluable. Among
these were the lake inventory maps of the Institute for
Fisheries Research at Ann Arbor, Michigan. These maps show
the physical lake outline and basin configuration through
the use of submerged contour lines or isobaths. They provide
depth data, and furnish information on aquatic vegetation,
bottom soil type, and some cultural developments.
Topographic quadrangle maps of the United States
Geological Survey, aerial photographs, and a soil type map
of jackson County were helpful in identifying the boundaries
of organic soils around the periphery of the lakes studied.
Michigan Department of Conservation county maps and
a county plat book helped in the determination of riparian
ownership. Inventory data from the Fish Division of the
Department of Conservation furnished information on physical,
biological, and geographical characteristics, as well as

miscellaneous notes on accessibility and other factors.

Inventory Procedure.

 

The field reconnaissance of lakes was performed

11

during the summer of 1958, during the period of greatest
overall recreational use and of maximum aquatic vegetation
growth. Some field checks were made during the following
winter on the intermittency of certain inlets and outlets.
Observations of each lake were made at sufficient vantage
points around the shoreline to obtain the needed data. The
use of binoculars greatly reduced the number of field checks
on some of the larger lakes. Data was recorded on an inven-
tory schedule similar to that shown in Appendix A, page 54.
Observations on lake use were based on physical evidence
such as number of boats, docns, cottages, and other cultural
improvements. Many personal contacts with local residents
were helpful in establishing existing lake use ratings.
These conversations were particularly helpful in determining
predominant fish species and the nature of past and present

fishing.

Treatment 3: Findings.

On the basis of the field observations and a review
of various maps and other inventory data, selected compu-
tations and tabulations were made. These calculations and

their relation to the study are discussed in the following

section.

IV. REPORT OF THE STUDY

Scoge.

Geographical factors considered were conditions such
as lake size, shape, and basin configuration. The nature of
the land surface was also noted, as were drainage conditions,
vegetative cover, human occupation along shores, and upland
and lake bottom soil types. Evidence of lake use was based
on available inventory data, personal contacts, and field
observations. A list of the lakes inventoried is given in
Table I. The location of these lakes is shown on Map 1, page

58.

Area Description.

 

Jackson County was selected for the study area
because of personal familiarity, relative ease of access, and
physiographic variations. Beforehand knowledge of general
locations helped expedite the performance of field work in a
minimum of time.

Jackson County has a land area of 705 square miles
and is situated in the densely populated, south-central part
of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan. Its water resources
are heavily used by local residents as well as by outstate
tourists. The county climate is characterized by moderately
cold winters and warm summers. The average January and July
temperatures are about 25°F. and 73°F., respectively. .The

annual rainfall is approximately 31 inches, being distributed

TABLE I

LAKES INVENTORIED AND CLASSIFIED

 

 

 

 

Name Town Range Section
Ackerson 33. 13. 19,30
Batteese 13. 13. 9
Brill 23. 13. 22
Clark 48. 13. 15,16,17,20,21,22
Clear 1,28. 23. 35,36,1,2
Cranberry 38. 13. 29,31,32
Cranberry, Little 33. 13. 29,32
Crispell 43. IV. 20,21
Farwell 43. 23. 25,36
Fink 1N.,13. 23. 34,4
Freymuth IS. 23. 32
Gillette 28. 13. 27,28,33,34
Goose 23. 1,23. 19,24,25,30
Grass 23. 23. 29,32
Hoffman 13. 23. 29
Horseshoe 43. 2W. 29
Leeks 13. 23. 13
Lime 33. 2W. 28
Line, North 33. 2W. 21
Lutz 23. 23. 4
Ierkle 13. 23. 14,15
Mud 48. 23. 25,26,35,36
Olcott 33. 13. 23,24
Olcott, Little 33. 13. 23
Pleasant - 13. 13. 7,8,17,18
Pond Lily (34A.) 13. 23. 32
Pond Lily (67.5A.) 23. 23. 12
Portage 1,23. 1,23. 25,36,30,31,32,5,6
Portage, Little 18. 23. 29,32
Price 33. 13. 14,15
Round (45A.) 33. 13. 8,9,16,17
Round (66.5A.) 4,53. 2,33. 1,6,31,36
Round (155.1.) 43. 1,2W. 25,30,31,36
Schoolhouse 23. 23. 5
Stony 3,43. 13. 2,3,35
Swains 48. 3W. 3,4
Sweezey 33. 23. 2,35
Tims . 23. 23. 20,29
Trumbull 13. 1W. 24
Vandercook 33. 1V. 22,23,26,27
Vineyard 43. 23. 28,29,32,33
Walz 18. 23. 36
Wamplers 4,58. 23. 1,2,3,34,35,36
Welch 23. 1,23. 13,18
White 18. 13. 29

gilbur 48. 33. 14,15
DH 33. 1 21:.
Wolf, Little 3s. ’23. 93’“

_

 

 

 

 

13

14

relatively evenly throughout the year, and the average frost
free period is 155 days.1 May, June, and September in de-
creasing order have the highest monthly precipitation
averages. February, January, and December in increasing
order have the lowest monthly precipitation averages. The
average snowfall is 45 inches.2 While the county is suscep-
tible to wind storms and tornadoes, the wind movement is
generally low; prevailing winds are from the west. The
evaporation rate is low, partly due to a moderately high
relative humidity.

The topography of Jackson County is undulating to
rolling with the maximum relief being approximately 280 feet.
The areas of flat surface and slopes are nearly equal. Two
notable exceptions are the northeast quadrant and the south-
central part of the county which are characterized by rolling
to hilly relief in which the area of slopes exceeds that of
flat land. These slopes are largely the result of glacial
deposition.

The southeast quadrant of the county lies in an area
interlobate between the Kalamazoo moraninic system of the

Saginaw glacial lobe and the Mississinewa morainic system of

1United States Department of Agriculture, Climate and
Man, Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1941), p. 915.

 

ZSnowfall Contour Map, Winter of 1956-57 (Lansing:
Michigan State Highway Departmenfik

15

the Erie glacial lobe. The southeast guadrant is character-
ized by a great deal of outwash material, a result of the
rapid melting of the Erie and Saginaw lobes in this region.
Areas of ground moraine are loCated north and south of Clark
Lake. The northeast guadrant of the county is composed of
outwash material and ground moraine. In addition this
quadrant is divided roughly from northeast to southwest by a
portion of the Kalamazoo moraine. That portion of the
Waterloo State Recreation Area which lies within the county
is associated with the Kalamazoo moraine. The west half of
the county consists chiefly of moraines of the Kalamazoo
system. Numerous outwash channels are scattered throughout
this morainic area, and lesser amounts of ground moraine
also occur. Two former glacial spillways are found (1)
south of Springport, and (2) north of Parma. Both channels
are now tributaries of the Kalamazoo River which drains the
southwestern part of the county. Several eskers are promi-
nent in the county-~most notable of which is Blue Ridge,
visible from the road cut of US-127 seven miles south of
Jackson.

According to Veatch, the major soil association of
the county is that of the Hillsdale-Miami-Bellefontaine

complex.3 These soils are mostly sandy loams and light

3J. O. Veatch, Soils and Land.2£_Michi an (East
Lansing: Michigan State College Press, 1953) p. 72.

16

loams of moderate natural fertility.

A soil association subordinate to the preceding, but
second in extent,is the Fox-Plainfield group. These soils
occur chiefly in the southeast quadrant of the county and
are of generally low natural fertility. Of the soils men-
tioned the Hillsdale series occupies the greatest extent and
is predominant in all quarters of the county except the south-
east.

Jackson County is well endowed with water resources.
Its streams constitute the headwaters of several major river
systems of the state. Major drainage systems of the county
are shown in Figure 3. Water from wells is generally avail-
able at from 20 to 150 feet, and in some areas, such as at
Clark Lake, flowing wells occur. There are 188 lakes in the
county--1l of them over 200 acres in size,4 and approximately
20% of the total county area is swamp and other wet 1ands.5
In a study of chemical and merphometric characteristics of
selected lakes in southern Michigan, Hooper proposes an
alkalinity of 105 p.p.m. as the arbitrary threshold for

"hard water lakes" in this region.6 His study also showed

 

4"Jackson County Water Resources Data" (Lansing:
Michigan Water Resources Commission). (n.d.).

51. o. Veatch, F. w. Trull, and J. A. Porter, Soil
Surve .2: Jackson County, Michigan, United States Department
of Agriculture, Number 17(Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1926), p. 2.

6Hooper, 92. cit., pp. 127-128.

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 3

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS OP JACKSON COUNTY

17

18

 

Figure 4. Marl bottom and concretions at the south end

of Farwell Lake--a "hard water" lake with an alka-
linity of about 153 p.p.m.

 

Figure 5. Shoreline at the southeast side of Little
Portage Lake--a "hard water" lake with an alkalinity
range of about 204-237 p.p.m. The white bands are

small snail shells deposited at successively lower
water levels.

19

 

Figure 6. Lime Lake and North Lime Lake separated by
the New York Central roadbed. Both lakes were formed

from marl excavations. Lime Lake on the right is
heavily used for swimming in spite of a steep slope
to the five foot depth level and a very narrow beach.

 

,5; -

Figure 7. The intensely used beach portion of Walter J.
Hayes State Park located on Wamplers Lake.

20

that the mean alkalinity of twenty-two lakes in Jackson
County was 149 p.p.m. The individual alkalinity of these
lakes was for the most part above 100 p.p.m. This tends to

indicate the lakes of the county are well within the hard

water range.

The original forest vegetation, primarily of oak,
hickory, beech, maple, elm, ash, and basswood is now found in
small plots and wood lots. Scattered growths of red cedar,
favored by sandy soils and relief induced micro-climate, can

be found in various parts of the county on the steeper

slopes.

Most of the lakes inventoried are of glacial origin.
Two exceptions are the Lime Lakes south of Spring Arbor,
which are a result of marl excavations. According to Scott,

the following types of lake basins due to glacial processes

have been recognized in Michigan:7

1. Glacial scour.
2. Morainal basin.
3. Morainal dam.
4. Pit.

5. Inter-morainic.

6. Fosse.

A cursory examination established the morainal basin and pit
lake as the two leading types of lake basins recognized in

Jackson County. However, this was not a detailed investi-

gation, and individual variations may occur.

71. D. Scott, Inland Lakes 2f Michi an, Publication
30, Geological Series 25 (Lansing: Michigan Geological and
BioIOgical Survey, 1920), p. 23.

21

 

Figure 8. Schoolhouse Lake, having a low degree of
overall recreational use, and situated in a swamp
area with a marginal soil type of Rifle peat.

 

Figure 9. The Portage River, which provides public
access to Freymuth Lake visible in the background.

22

Data Presentation.
On the basis of the inventory data obtained, certain
compilations and tabulations were made.

Table II gives the evaluation of existing development
on the forty-eight lakes inventoried. The development
ratings are those described in the section of definitions,
page 4. The greatest potential develOpment lies in the low
and moderately classed lakes which represent forty-six per

cent of the lakes studied. Table III, page 24, lists the

area of the lakes studied. This information was obtained

from lake inventory maps compiled by the Institute for
Fisheries Research. Owing to increased vegetative growth,

the area of Walz lake was recalculated using the graph paper

method.8

0

Table IV, page 25, gives the maximum depth of the

lakes studied. This information was also obtained from lake

inventory maps.

Table V, page 26, gives the shoreline length for
each lake studied. This information was calculated by

tracing the perimeter of each lake shown on an inventory map

with a Dietzgen map measurer. The shoreline of Walz Lake

8The outline of a lake is superimposed upon squared
paper, and its area is determined by dividing the total
number of squares included in the lake outline by the number
of similar squares within that unit, based on the map scale,
in which it is desired to express the area.

TABLE II

EXISTING LAKE DEVELOPMENT

23

 

Name

Undeveloped

Low Moderate

Full

Intensive

 

Ackerson
Batteese;

Brill

Clark

Clear

Cranberry
Cranberry, Little
Crispell
Farwell

Fink

Freymuth
Gillette

Goose

Grass

Hoffman
Horseshoe

Leeke

Lime

Lime, Nerth
Lutz

Merkle

Mud

OIcott

Olcott, Little
Pleasant

Pond Lily (34A.)
Pond Lily (67.5A.)
Portage
Portage, Little
Price

Round (45A.)
Round (66.5A.)
Round (155A.)
Schoolhouse
Stony

Swains
Sweezey

Tims

Trumbull
Vandercook
Vineyard

Walz

Wamplers
Welch

White

Wilbur

Wolf

MM

MM MMM

X

MM

MM MM M MM M
MM

MMM

MM

MMM

MM

 

 

Wolf, Little
'_——"TBTEI
PerTent Oi IDLE].

 

11

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE III
LAKE AREA IN ACRES

 

24

 

 

 

Area Name
780 Acres Wamplers
580 Clark
505 Vineyard
398 Goose
376 Wolf
360 Portage
350 Gillette
348 Grass
269 Pleasant
240 Stony
213 Farwell
187 Ackerson
155 Round
144 Vandercook
141.9 Brill
136 Clear
119 Mud
116 Welch
106 Wolf, Little
105 Sweezey
103 Batteese
103 Tims
96 Lime
93 Cranberry
88.5 Merkle
82.5 Crispell
75 Lime, North
70 White
69.5 Swains
67.5 Pond Lily
67.5 Portage, Little
66.5 Round
53 Wilbur
52.5 Hoffman
49 Horseshoe
49 Price
45 Round
44 Olcott, Little
40 Olcott
34 Pond Lily
33.5 Fink
13.3 Walz
12.5 Trumbull
11.5 Leeke
11.3 Cranberry, Little
11.2 Freymuth
3.5 Schoolhouse
2 Lutz

 

25

TABLE IV
MAXIMUM DEPTH IN FEET

 

 

 

Depth Lake
64 Ft- Swains
52 Pleasant
50 Clark
50 Round (66.5A.)
50 Wolf, Little
47 Ackerson
45 Wolf
43 Farwell
42 Vandercook
42' Vineyard
40 Portage
40 Round (155A.)
39 Wamplers
35 Trumbull \
35 White
34 Clear
32 Cranberry
32 Price
32 Stony
30 Gillette
30 Lime, North
27 Brill
27 Lime
25 Crispell
25 Horseshoe
25 Olcott
23 Mud
23 Sweezey
22 Olcott, Little
22 Tims
21 Pond Lily (34A,)
21 Portage, Little
20 Hoffman
20 Welch
19 Schoolhouse
18 Fink
17 Batteese
17 Cranberry, Little
14 Freymuth
13 Grass
13 Lutz
13 Wilbur
12 Merkle
9 Leeke
9 Round (45A.)
7 Pond Lily (67.5A.)
6 Goose
5 Walz

 

 

26
TABLE V

LENGTH or SHORELINE
(PERIMETER IN FEET)

 

 

 

Length Lake
34,663 Ft- Vineyard
31,300 Clark
27,347 Wamplers
24,900 Goose
242000 Portage
23,100 Wolf
21,900 Stony
21,300 Gillette
21.300 Grass
18,200 Ackerson
17,000 Farwell
13,200 Pleasant
13,013 Clear
12,525 Brill
12,000 Cranberry
11,600 Vandercook
11,100 Mud
11,100 Round (155A.)
10,725 Welch
10.385 Swains
10,275 Lime
10,200 Tims

9,909 Wolf, Little
9,900 Crispell
9,700 Portage, Little
9,375 Sweezey

9,225 Batteese
9,000 Lime, North
8,250 Merkle

8,150 Horseshoe
8,100 Olcott, Little
7,800 Wilbur

7,050 White

7,037 Round (66.5A.)
6,650 Hoffman

6,350 Pond Lily (34A.)
6,200 Olcott

6,100 Price

6,050 Pond Lily (67.5A.)
5,450 Round (45A.)
4,575 Fink

4,250 Walz

3,800 Leeke

3,000 Trumbull
2,750 Cranberry, Little
2,700 Freymuth
1,500 Schoolhouse
1,100 Lutz

 

 

27

was delineated so as to correspond with present conditions.

Shore develOpment indices given in Table VI were
calculated according to the procedure described by Welch.9
Shore development refers to the ratio of shoreline length to
the length of the circumference of a circle whose area is
equal to that of the lake. The following formula was used:

Shore development index = -§Rg%§r ;
where s is length of shoreline, and a is area of the lake.
This index reflects the degree of regularity of a shoreline.
A large number reflects a high degree of irregularity; while
an index of one indicates a shoreline in the approximate
shape of a circle. This relationship between the length of
shoreline and the area enclosed has biological significance.
As a general rule the higher the index number, the greater
the productivity. The highly irregular shoreline has more
bays or sheltered zones protected from the wind and resultant
wave action. As a result of reduced wave action, greater
Opportunity is afforded plant growth.

Table VII, page 29, gives the approximate percentage
of lake area with a water depth of less than twenty feet.
These estimates were derived using the graph paper method
(see footnote on page 22). The per cent slope between the

five and twenty foot depth usually encompasses the area of

9Paul S. Welch, Limnological Methods (Philadelphia:
Blakiston Company, 1948), p. 93.

28
TABLE VI
SHORE DEVELOPMENT INDEX

 

Index Number Lake

 

Vineyard
Stony
Ackerson
Clark
Cranberry
Goose

Portage
Swains
Farwell
Horseshoe
Olcott, Little
Walz

Wolf

Clear

Crispell
Gillette

Grass

Leeke

Pond Lily (34A.)
Brill

Lime, North
Lime

Mud

Portage, Little
Round (155A.)
Tims

Wilbur

Olcott
Vandercook
Wamplers

Welch

Wolf, Little
Batteese
Hoffman

Merkle

Price

Round (66.5A.)
Sweezey
Cranberry, Little
Fink

Freymuth

Lutz

Pleasant

Pond Lily (67.5A.)
Round (45A.)
Schoolhouse
Trumbull

White

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHN
HHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNwwwwwfififihhfihfimmmMOWQOQGGQQQQmQWH

 

 

29
TABLE VII
APPROXIMATE PER CENT SHOAL

 

 

Per Cent Lake

100 % Batteese
100 Cranberry, Little
100 Fink
100 Freymuth
100 Goose
100 Grass
100 Hoffman
100 Leeke
100 Lutz
100 Merkle
100 Pond Lily (67.5A.)
100 Round (45A.)
100 Schoolhouse
100 Walz
100 Welch
100 Wilbur

99 Portage, Little
99 Tims

98 Lime, North
98 Mud

98 Sweezey

97 Gillette

97 Olcott, Little
95 Crispell

90 Clear

85 Horseshoe

85 Stony ‘

85 White

80 Pond Lily (34A.)
75 Ackerson

75 Lime

75 Olcott

75 Round (155A.)
70 Cranberry

70 Price

70 Wamplers

65 Brill

65 Wolf, Little
60 Clark

60 Pleasant

60 Trumbull

60 Wolf

50 Farwell

50 Portage

5O Swains

40 Round (66.5A.)
30 Vandercook

25 Vineyard

 

 

30

most abundant submerged, rooted plant growth,10 and the
actual slope may indicate to what degree the products of
decomposition are available to plant and animal life. The
shoal area also includes the spawning grounds of various
fish species.

Table VIII lists the approximate percentage of lake
shoreline bordered by swamp or marsh. This information was
determined from field observations and analysis of aerial
photographs.

Table IX, page 32, indicates the estimated overall
abundance of aquatic vegetation in the shoal area for each
lake studied. The classifications sparse to moderate and
abundant reflect the density and frequency of occurrence of
emergent, floating, and submergent aquatic vegetation. No
further qualitative distinction was attempted. Examples of
sparse to moderate and abundant aquatic vegetation are illus-
trated in Figures 10-15, pages 33-35. Table X, page 36,
gives the average per cent slope from the shoreline to the
five foot depth for each lake studied. Per cent slope
calculations were performed using the lake inventory maps.

On these maps equal distances were marked on the lake shore-
line; the shortest distance from each point so marked to the
five foot isobath was measured to the nearest 0.05 of an inch.

The arithmetic mean of all these distances was converted to

10Hooper, 22. cit., p. 115.

31

TABLE VIII

APPROXIMATE PER CENT OF SHORELINE BORDER IN SWAMP OR MARSH

 

 

Per Cent Lake
100 % Fink
100 Freymuth
100 Hoffman
100 Leeke
100 Lutz
100 Schoolhouse
100 Walz
98 Pond Lily (34A.)
98 Portage, Little
95 Horseshoe
90 Brill
90 Trumbull
80 Cranberry
80 Lime
80 Pond Lily (67.5A.)
75 Cranberry, Little
75 Goose
75 Olcott, Little
70 Batteese
70 Merkle
70 Tims
65 Wilbur
60 Lime, North
55 Ackerson
55 Mud
50 Vineyard
45 Olcott
45 Stony
40 Wolf
35 Crispell
35 Farwell
35 White
30 Portage
30 Price
30 Vandercook
25 Grass
25 Swains
25 Wolf, Little
20 Gillette
20 Sweezey
Round (66.5A.)
Wamplers
Welch

15
12
10
5
5
0
O
0

 

Round (45A.)
Round (155A.)
Clark

Clear
Pleasant

 

32

TABLE IX

ABUNDANCE OF MARGINAL AQUATIC VEGETATION

 

 

 

Sparse To Moderate Abundant
Ackerson Batteese
Clark Brill
Clear Cranberry
Crispell Cranberry, Little
Farwell Fink
Gillette Freymuth
Grass Goose
Lime Hoffman
Lime, North Horseshoe
Olcott Leeke
Pleasant Lutz
Pond Lily (34A.) Merkle
Portage Mud
Portage, Little Olcott, Little
Price Pond Lily (67.5A.)

Round (45A.)
Round (66.5A.)
Round (155A.)
Stony

Swains
Sweezey
Trumbull
Vandercook
Vineyard
Wamplers
Welch

White

Wolf

Wolf, Little

 

Schoolhouse
Tims

Walz

Wilbur

 

Figure 10. Round Lake (155A.). jUdged to have sparse to
moderate aquatic vegetation in the shoal area.

 

Figure 11. Crispell Lake, judged to have sparse to mod-
erate aquatic vegetation in the shoal area.

33

 

 

Figure 12. Swains Lake, judged to have sparse to mod-
erate vegetation in the shoal area.

 

Figure 13. Little Cranberry Lake, judged to have abun-
dant vegetation in the shoal area.

34

 

Figure 14.

Walz Lake, judged to have abundant aquatic

vegetation in the shoal area.

 

Figure 15.

Goose Lake, judged to have abundant aquatic

vegetation in the shoal area.

35

36
TABLE X
AVERAGE PER CENT SLOPE TO FIVE FOOT DEPTH

 

 

Per Cent Slope Lake

 

16.1 % Pond Lily (34A.)
12.5 Trumbull

11.1 Lutz

9 Schoolhouse
Cranberry, Little
Freymuth

Lime

Portage, Little
Cranberry

Fink

Swains
Vandercook
White

Round (66.5A.)
Olcott, Little
Ackerson
Welch

Wilbur

Leeke

Mud

Brill

Farwell

Lime, North
Round (45A.)
Clear

Crispell

Price
Vineyard

Wolf, Little
Horseshoe
Batteese
Olcott
Hoffman
Merkle
Pleasant

Tims

Portage

pond Lily (67.5A.)
Wolf

Clark

Round (155A.)
Wamplers

Stony
Gillette
Sweezey

Grass

Goose*

-_- Wa1z*

OOOOHHHI—Ii—II—IHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNwwwwpmem
a o o o o o o o e o e a 0 O O O 0 O O O
fiQQtDOOHNNwmbrhtG-OQQOOOOOOOOCDOOHHNNyP-thnhmtDOHI-‘HHNWBQNOO

 

NOnly one point in the lake five feet deep.

37

feet according to the appropriate map scale. The average
per cent slope, the vertical depth in feet for every 100
feet of horizontal distance, was then calculated by simple
proportion, as follows:
212' (Mean of severed measuremchs)
52////’/7 5' _ x
-—EEF_' " 100'

212x 500
x ZAV132/U%

 

 

I!

The spacing of peripheral measurement points on the map of
each lake varied depending on the lake area and map scale.
Variation in such spacing was necessary to achieve a satis-
factory degree of consistency among several per cent slope
determinations for a given lake. As a general rule, however,
a spacing of not greater than 500 feet proved satisfactory

for those lakes larger than 100 acres.

Table XI lists the maximum depth-surface relation
indices for the various lakes. As described by Welch, this
index is an indication of the relation of depth to horizontal
extent.11 The index is derived by dividing the maximum

depth of a lake in feet by the square root of the surface

area in feet.

11Paul S. Welch,.Limnological Methods (Philadelphia:
Blakiston Company, 1948), p. 78.

38

TABLE XI
MAXIMUM DEPTH - SURFACE RELATION

 

 

 

Index Number Lake
0.0483 Schoolhouse
.0474 Trumbull
.0440 Lutz
.0368 Swains
.0294 Round (66.5A.)
.0242 Cranberry, Little
.0233 Wolf, Little
.0219 Price
.0200 Freymuth
.0200 White
.0189 Olcott
.0172 Pond Lily (34A.)
.0171 Horseshoe
.0168 Vandercook
.0166 Lime, North
.0165 Ackerson
.0159 Cranberry
.0159 Olcott, Little
.0154 Round (155A.)
.0152 Pleasant
.0149 Fink
.0141 Farwell
.0140 Clear
.0132 Crispell
.0132 Hoffman
.0132 Lime
.0127 Leeke
.0122 Portage, Little
.0111 Wolf
.0108 Brill
.0107 Sweezey
.0104 Tims
.0101 Mud
.0101 Portage
.0099 ' Clark
.0094 Stony
.0089 Vineyard
.0089 Welch
.0085 Wilbur
.0080 Batteese
.0077 Gillette
.0067 Wamplers
.0066 Walz
.0064 Round (45A.)
.0061 Merkle
.0041 Pond Lily (67.5A.)
.0033 Grass
0.0014 Goose

 

 

39

Analysis gfi Data.

All inventory data were correlated with evidence of
lake use in order to analyze relationships between use and
environment. There was no evidence of power, water supply,
or irrigation development on any of the lakes studied. It
is felt this type of development would be impeded by legal
problems and the low water head of lakes in the county. Low
water levels, a result of abnormally low precipitation in
1958, were evident on several lakes. Such fluctuations

would hinder the development of a lake for irrigation and

water supply purposes.

Lake area in conjunction with depth was observed to
enhance the degree of boating possible, the larger lakes,
usually 100 acres or more with adequate depth, being more
suitable for boatino. There was no apparent relationship
between recreational use and the absolute length of shore-
line, and the shore development index alone was not a
reliable indication of fishing quality. Most of the lakes
inventoried were sheltered from intense winds to the extent
that shoal areas were protected from damaging wave action.

Lakes of both intensive and low recreational use
were found in all ranges of the per cent shoal array. In
general, however, those lakes with 100 per cent shoal were
associated with marsh, swamp, or bog-like situations.

The extent of swamp or marsh conditions around the

lake periphery was observed to have a limiting effect on

40

\

's'w'

Il‘d‘ .: ' I ‘-
L 1‘... , .> I ,J
, ‘n r"ifl"'51"flM" '4'-- r

‘

l-—»
\‘I- ,—

 

Pigure 16. Boats mired in muck at Horseshoe Lake--a
result of the low water level evidenced on many
Jackson County lakes in the summer of 1958.

 

Figure 17. Pond lily choked outlet of Brill Lake, a
result of low water level and intermittent drainage
characteristics.

41

recreational development. This type of lake margin impeded
access to the water and furnished an environment undesirable
for bathing. The organic soils did not provide suitable
bearing strata for cottages, and their use for such devel-
opment was noticeably limited.

A close relationship was observed among the abundance
of vegetation in the shoal and the character of the shoreline.
All of the lakes considered to have abundant aquatic vege-
tation in the shoal area also had a shoreline border of more
than fifty per cent swamp or marsh. Abundant vegetation
impeded access to the water and restricted shoreline uses,
particularly swimming. Personal interviews indicated that
fishing was better on those lakes with at least a moderate
abundance of aquatic vegetation. This observation is in
keeping with present biological knowledge to the effect that
excessive vegetation competes unfavorably with fish life for
food nutrients while a moderate abundance of aquatic vege-
tation provides optimum conditions for food and shelter.

An expected relationship between per cent slope to
the five foot water depth and lake utilization for swimming
did not materialize. There was no apparent correlation
between the width of a bathing beach and its use for swimming.

The maximum depth-surface relation index served only
to reflect the physical comparison among lakes of depth to
surface area. No relationship between this index and suit-

ability for fishing, boating, and other uses was ascertained.

42

 

Figure 18. Fink Lake, privately owned, bordered by
swamp, and having a low degree of overall recre-
ational use.

 

Figure 19. Trail to Pink Lake-~for 375 feet planks are
necessary to provide adequate footing over the
Rifle peat soil type.

43

The accessibility of lakes by roads and status of
riparian ownership were discarded as limiting lake use
factors. While both conditions may sharply limit lake use
at the present, they cannot be considered permanent enough

in nature to restrict future potential development.

Classification Criteria.

From an examination of the inventory data and
tabular compilations, it became apparent that there were
only three reliable factors corresponding to overall rec-
reational lake use, namely: area, percentage of swamp or
marsh margin, and abundance of marginal aquatic vegetation.
Owing to the close correlation between abundant vegetation
in the shoal and a proportion of swamp or marsh shoreline
greater than fifty per cent, the fifty per cent figure was
adopted as the transition point for limiting effects of a
swamp or marsh margin. The following criteria were then
grouped into the eight different possible combinations:

Greater than 50% swamp or marsh.

Less than 50% swamp or marsh.

Sparse to moderate vegetation in the shoal area.

Abundant vegetation in the shoal area.

Greater than 100 acres surface area.

Less than 100 acres surface area.

Since the surface area tended to compliment or only modify
the apparent lake use, it was drOpped as an essential class-

ification criterion. The remaining factors were combined

into three similar groups:

44

1 Less than 50% swamp or marsh and sparse to
moderate vegetation.

II Greater than 50% swamp or marsh and sparse
to moderate vegetation, or

Less than 50% swamp or marsh and abundant
vegetation.

III Greater than 50% swamp or marsh and abundant
vegetation.

The classification Criteria selected are not without
ecological significance. The selected criteria are in some
respects like the vegetation of a climax region in which the
life form of the dominant species is definitely a product of
the environment.12 Owing to the selection of natural class-
ification criteria, it is highly probable that they reflect
the end result of all the various chemical, physical, and
biological factors that are in constant interaction to pro-
duce the environment known as a lake community.

The three groups developed formed the basis for
classifying the lakes inventoried. The classes were abbrevi-
ated as follows:

Class I Lake - Less than 50%
and S—M

Greater than 50%, or Less than 50%
and S-M and A

Class 11 Lake

Greater than 50%
and A

Class III Lake

The classification of the forty-eight lakes inventoried is

13Henry J. Oosting, The Study of Plant Communities
(San Francisco: w. H. Freeman and Company, 1953), pp. 211-
233.

 

45

given in Table XII.

The Class I lakes typically provide the greatest
overall recreational use as defined in the study or indicate
the greatest use potential. The Class III lakes provide the
lowest overall use or indicate the lowest use potential.

The characteristics of Class 11 lakes are not so readily
defined except to the extent that they lie between the low
and high use classes. Class 11 lakes with relatively large
surface areas tend to assume the character of Class I. More
available cottage sites, moderate aquatic vegetation, good
fishing, and suitable areas for boating and swimming are the
general aspects of Class I lakes. Class III lakes usually
rank lower in all these aspects, and the lake basin is

frequently in a late ecological succession stage.

Classification Use.

The classification system developed is based on
natural factors. The particular type or class a lake lies
in, therefore, does not necessarily indicate a high degree
of existing develOpment. Rather, develOpment potential may
be indicated.

The lakes inventoried and classified amount to 25%%
of the total number in Jackson County. The diversity of
lakes studied and the extent of the sample appear to justify
the application of the classification system to all the

lakes of the county. The classification should aid in the

46

TABLE XII

CLASSIFICATION OF 48 LAKES IN JACKSON COUNTY

 

 

 

Class I Class II Class III
Clark Ackerson Batteese
Clear Lime Brill
Crispell Lime, North Cranberry
Farwell Pond Lily (34A.) Cranberry, Little
Gillette Portage, Little Fink
Grass Trumbull Freymuth
Olcott Vineyard Goose
Pleasant Hoffman
Portage Horseshoe
Price Leeke
Round (45A.) ‘ Lutz
Round (66.5A.) Merkle
Round (155A.) Mud
Stony Olcott, Little
Swains Pond Lily (67.5A.)
Sweezey Schoolhouse
Vandercook Tims
Wamplers Wilbur
Welch Walz
White
Wolf
Wolf, Little

 

 

 

47

future develOpment of surface water resources in the county,
since the three lakes classes reflect the relative intensity
of use or indicate the relative use potential possible. The
classification would be a helpful guide for zoning procedures
and management methods desired.

Lakes previously unsurveyed can be Classified under
the system developed quite easily. The preliminary estimate
of per cent of shoreline in swamp or marsh can be determined
from aerial photographs. Since the preliminary estimate may
only indicate the extent of organic soil types, rather than
actual marsh or swamp conditions, a field check is necessary
so the estimate can be verified and the abundance of aquatic

vegetation in the shoal be determined.

V. SUMMARY

An inventory of selected lakes in Jackson County
was undertaken in the summer of 1958. The purpose of the
inventory was to furnish data that would form the basis for
a recreational classification of such lakes as an aid to
planning and future development of surface water resources.
Based on natural factors, three lake classes were developed.

Class I - Those lakes exhibiting the greatest
overall recreational development or the
greatest overall potential for recrea-
tional development.

Class II - Those lakes intermediate between the
characteristics of Class I and Class
II. Modifying factors, especially
area in excess of 100 acres, cause
these lakes to assume the qualities
of Class 1.

Class III - Those lakes exhibiting the lowest over-
all recreational development or the
lowest overall potential for recrea-
tional development.'

Further study is needed to determine if this classi-

fication is applicable to all areas of the state or to other

regional locations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

50

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Field Manual of Soil Engineering. 3rd ed. Lansing:
Michigan State Highway Department, 1952.

Forel, F. A. Le Leman. Monographie Limnologique. 3 vols.
Lausanne, Switzerland, 1892.

Needham, James G., et al. A Symposium on Hydrobiology.
Madison: Univers1ty _of Wiscons1n Press, 1941.

Oosting, Henry J. The Study 3: Plant Communities. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1953.

Scott, I. D. Inland Lakes of Michi an. Publication 30,
Geological Series 25. Lan51ng: M1chigan Geological and

Biological Survey, 1920.

United States Department of Agriculture. Climate and Man.
Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington: Government Pr1nting

Office, 1941.

Veatch, J.O . Soils and Land of Michigan. East Lansing:
Michigan State College Press, 1 53.

Welch, Paul S. Limnology. 2nd ed. New Ybrk: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1952.

Welch, Paul S. Limnolggical Methods. Philadelphia:
Blakiston Company, 1948.

Reports

Booth, Alfred w. The Lakes gf_the NOrtheaStern Inland
Empire. Bulletin No. 5. Pullman, Washington: State
College of Washington, School of Economics and Business,

1948.

Brown, C. J. D. Lake Names. Michigan Department of
Conservation Miscellaneous Publication No. 2. Ann Arbor:

Institute for Fisheries Research, 1944.

51

Davis, H. S. Instructions for Conductino Stream and Lake
Surveys. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938.

 

Fish For More Fisherman. Lansing: Michigan Department of
Conservafion, 1955.

 

Fish Planting_Record. Lansing: Michigan Department of
Conservation, D1vision of Fisheries, 1953-1958.

 

Humphrys, C. R., R. N. Horner, and J. H. Rogers. Shoretype
Classification Lf Van Buren Coungy, Michiaan. Shoretype
Bulletin No. 2. *East Lan51ng: Michigan State University,
Department of Resource Development, 1958.

 

 

 

Our Vanishing Shoreline. A Report by the United States
Department "of“ the Interior, National Park Service, 195_ .

 

Roelofs, Eugene W. Water Soils Lg Relation 33 Lake
Productivity. Technical—Bullet1n 190. East Lansing:
Michigan State College, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1944.

 

Veatch, J.O ., F. W. Trull, and J. A. Porter. Soil Survey
Lf Jackson County, Mighigan. United States Department of

Agriculture, Number 17. Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1926.

 

Articles

Beckman, William C. "A Look at a Lake,"Michigan Conservation,
Vol. XVI, No. 6, July, 1947.

Bowers, Neal M., Kenneth C. McMurry, and Katherine M. Stahl.
"Lake Shore Inventory and Classification," Papers Lf the
Michigan Academy Lf Science, Arts, and Letters, 27: 337-
344, 1942.

 

Brown, C. J. D. "How Many Lakes in Michigan,” Michigan
Conservation, 12:5-6, 1943.

Brown, C. J. D., and O. H. Clark. "Winter Lake Mapping,"
Michigan Conservatign, February, 1939.

 

Hooper, Frank F. "Some Chemical and Morphometric Character-
istics of Southern Michigan Lakes," PapersL of the
Michigan Academy Lf Science, Arts, and Letters, 41 :109-
130,1956.

 

 

52

Lievense, Stanley. "When Ybu Fish--Pick the Right Lake,"
Michigan Conservation, Vol. XXVII, No. 2, March-April,
1958.

McMurry, K. C., R. W. Eschmeyer, and C. M. Davis. "Objectives
and Methods in the Lake Inventory in Michigan," Pa ers
Lf the Michigan Acade_y pi Science, Arts, and Letters,
18: 259-2 76, 1933. ‘__

 

Miller, Donald E. "Michigan Lake Survey--A Cooperative
Enterprise," Transactions 9: the American Fisheries
Society, Vol. 66, 1936.

 

Pennak, Robert W. "Some Aspects of the Regional Limnology
of Northern Colorado," University 2: Colorado Studies,
Series D, 2:263-293, 1945.

 

Roelofs, Eugene W. "Available Plant Nutrients in Lake Soils,"

Michi an Agriculture Expgriment Station Quateriy
EuIlet1n, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 247-254, 1940.

 

Veatch, J. 0. "Soil Profiles in Relation to the Recession
and Extinction of Michigan Lakes,” Soil Science, Vol. 50,
No. 2, August, 1940.

 

Welch, Paul S. "A Limnological View of the Inland Waters of
Michigan," Fifty35econd Annual Report Lf the Michigan
AcademzL of Science, Arts, and Letters, pp. 19- 36, 1950.

 

Unpublished Material

Humphrys, Clifford R. "The Evaluation of Physical Factors
in Relation to Land Use: A Study of Gogebic and Onto-
nagon Counties, Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Michigan State College, East Lansing, 1952.

"Jackson County Water Resources Data." Lansing, Michigan
Water Resources Commission, (n.d.).

Jewell, William F. "A System of Inventory for the Shore-
zones of the Great Lakes." Unpublished Master's thesis,
Michigan State College, East Lansing, 1947.

Lakin, H. D. "Proposed Stream Classification Law for
Michigan." Unpublished paper, Michigan State University,
Department of Resource Development, East Lansing, March
20, 1957. (Mime ographed).

53

Maps

Aerial photographs. County symbol BDV (Jackson County),
United States Department of Agriculture, Commodity
Stabilization Service, 1956-1957.

lackson Count . Lansing: Michigan Department of Conser-
vation, 1957.

[ackson County Farm Plat Book. Rockford, Illinois:
RockTOrd Map Publishers, 1957.

Jackson (1939), Manchester (1949), Rives Junction (1921),
Spring Arbor (1949), Springport (1921), and Stockbridge
(1922) Quadrangles. Washington: U. 8. Geological
Survey.

Lalce Inventory Maps. Ann Arbor: Institute for Fisheries.
Research, biichigan Department of Conservation.

Martin, Helen M. yg2_of the Surface Formations of the
Southern Peninsula of Michigan. Publication—Z9T_-
Lansing: Department of Conservation, Geological Survey
Division, 1955.

 

Road Map of Jackson County Michigan. Jackson: Board of
County _Road Comm1551oners, 1958.

 

Snowfall Contour M 2. Winter of 1956-57. Lansing: Michigan
State Highway Department.

APPENDIX A

LAKE INVEN'IORY SCHEDULE 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date
,Name of Lake Approadmate Area
County location: '1bwn____, Range—J Sec.
Distance from , by ‘
'-___—wan. Miles & Direction. -Kihfi_3?kRoad

Distance to Nearest Road
Fed by' Drained by Landlocked

Yes or No
Length of Shoreline ft. Maidmum Depth ft.

 

 

Predominant Bottom Character

Estimated Abundance of

Vegetation in Shoal Area ~, ;
Emergent Floating #_§fihmergent

Overall Abundance of Peripheral Aquatic Vegetation “__

Per Cent of Shoreline ‘
Bordered by Swamp or Harsh _‘JUpland g_,0ther

 

Character of Upland

Description of Upland Vegetation

Per Cent of Shoreline in Cottages ,Club or Resort Ownership ,

Public Areas ,Farm Land ,Unimproved & Unoccupied ,

 

 

 

Other

Ownership Status [:1 Public, [3 Semi-Private, E] Private
Dominant Fish Species .__
Scenic Features
Use: None Slight Rbderate Intensive

33:11:13: 8 B D B

SwimmiDg D D 0
‘Water Color ___Natural Obstructions__f ;¢_

 

 

Evidence of Pollution or Turbidity
g#_, Upland_ri ‘g_

 

Soil Type: marginal;fif

56

Bathing Beaches: Type of Bottom
Approximate Distance to rim—x1e Foot Depth ft?

 

 

Public Areas

 

Boat Liveries

 

 

Tent and Trailer Camps, Campgrounds (other than Public)

 

 

Resorts or Resort Hotels

 

cabins and Motels

 

Grocery Stores, Gas Stations, Taverns, Other

 

 

NOTES

 

APPENDIX B

 

 

 

O
)-

  
  

.13
o:
S

9; .

EATON RAPIDS

EATON co. ! INGHAM

LIVINGSTON CO.
LODNIS
L

6

. d
8 “my 0

\
"o

94
‘2
3'94

A

I7

Elli/6
L

25
fflUMEUL L 2 .

(POP 593)

E T

NENRIETTA
STATION

26

92° '20'

_. to ANN ARBOR
T. 2 S.
5 4
BROOKLINE W" °‘°"’
mass
:9
”"16
42'-Io'
Y0 woven

NINEAN

CALHOUN
WASHTENAW

CITY
HILLSDALE . . ' ' . . CO. LENAWEE (POP. 50!) R.| E.

4'- ' .
3 2° l4'-Io

T0 CLINTON
I

TO
«9‘03»

_+_

LOCATION OF LAKES

INVENTORIED AND
CLASSIFIED

 

KEY TO COUNTIES

 

MAP I

 

 

 

 

 

EICKSON

\"

i
v"“"\'

r3: ’i ii“

.1 “HE’S

_,..
1': 5’19.

I’S CH 3'

TH vii

In :55:
'""' L .13!

“our yr; :1
.31: I 1- us

i “'1‘ LII. 2‘1 I

All' In“,

" " u:
a! -'«'r .>{ I
.' 3:

‘*, .o I
i .. J,
V 5593‘ :'

\ _:l”\;_.‘

‘h:
"39:
the”
":7,“
“in:
“My:
II

33" 3.59.:
“It-

‘3':-

(“m-
who.”
I

’li. .;

 

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
in “on, 54°-30
AT N I - I ' .' ,7 ‘ ' R2540“3K DANSVIL‘EE 59
JACKSQEABEQUNTY E O , 99 .. , _ . ,

MICHIGAN 0-
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION U CARLA? 1..

gr

e4°-2o’ ¢

 

G4°-IO'

~J LESLIE

 

c5
CD/FF/TH U
YOU COULD NOT ENJOY THE CLEAN WHOLESOME RECREATION OF THIS COUNTY

IF
ITS 593§§1§ VERE BURNED OVER
ITS §13§Ag§ VERE POLLUTED
ITS CAMP SITES VERE UNSANITARY

AND IF

RIDIAN

THERE WERE N0 GAME 0R FISH

HENRIETTA
STATIgN

KEEP MICHIGAN CLEAN AND GREEN

REPORT FOREST FIRES AND RETURN NEXT YEAR

MINARD
‘ t ‘ -—-

L LGEND '

42°-20’
STATE LANDS DEDICATED FOR STATE FORESTS. PARKS AND
OTHER PUBLIC CONSERVATION USES.

BOUNDARY STATE FORESTS. PARKS. ETC. *

.PUBLIC FISHING SITES. 9 SITE NOT USABLE

I FOREST CAMP GROUNDS.

ACOUN TY PARKS.

’ V, G ' '-:;:_~:I:3. :-:-" " Morrnv
.;.STATE HOLDS EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC FISHING ALONG STREAM I I .2. ,3 L To ANN ARBOR
BANKS OVER THE 40 ACRES INDICATED. -
T25.
IT Is THE POLICY NOT T0 DISPOSE OF STATE LANDS IN STATE
0R NATIONAL PROJECT AREAS. EXCEPTIONS MAY BE MADE IN CERTAIN
CASES WERE THE LANDS ARE DESIRED FOR AGRICULTURE OR To CON-
SOLIDATE owNERSHIP. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION INOUIRE LANDS

DIVISION. DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. LANSING 26. MICHIGAN.

LEGEND

T25.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROADS WATERWAYS 2
”II m
NITIVE no“, ______ AIRPORT O .93
UNIMPROVED no ------ OPERATED SHIP AND DARGE "k — ‘-
DRADED AND ”ism *g LINES -—--n ‘ " ' |'—' g
WL SURFACED ROAD :2: DOCK. PIER OR LANDING w = a
new. 5 ROAD m m a m a
8mm URFACED ROAD m FREE FERRY :IFH: Lu — =
“Views? SURFACED ROAD .m TOLL FERRY :‘I-TFAf: #- m N 8
AD — h .— '
_ _,_Q ------ 63 N
HEAD OF NAVIGATION (mm...) ' ”__ z m— 3 H
..
-‘ :3
EM DESIGNATION NAVIGABLE STREAM ,4 a
WWII) ms Ll-l
STATES HIGHWAY E73 L” 5
GENERAL CULTURAL FEATURES m U
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM A... .227. “-
“um A FARM UNIT . o
“DEM. IO NIGHWAV SYSTEM FA DWELLING (OTHER THAN FARM) u u
sv“WAIT: SECONDARY HIGHWAY Rows OR GROUPs OF DWELLINGS
“a“ ”s (CLOSELY SPACED) #- é:
um VEDERAL AID 4m sTORE OR SMALL BUSINESS
GNATED ROUTE ‘1 ESTABLISHMENT I. [5
SEASONAL DWELLING L A
SEASONAL DWELLINGs (CLOSELY .1.
A | RWAYS SPACED)
MR Rom POST OFFICE i
‘5 —--§—¢——— TOWNHALL. GRANGE DR T. 3 5
ARM COMMUNITY HALL I I5 T. 3 S.
“MANAVY OR MARINE CORPS FIELD © HOTEL L &
lNTR‘IMENT OF COMMERCE CHURCH ©THER RELIGIOUS
COMERMEDIATE FIELD O INSTITUTIONS) i C]
WHERCIAL on mmcmL HELD O SCHOOLHOUSE (OTHER
I‘ KEo AUXILIARY FIELD EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS) i D
:zLANE LANDING FIELD MARKED CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION rm
EM[AGENCY HOSPITAL "I ‘33
FACTORY OR INDUSTRIAL PLANT J A
RAILROADS SAWMILL (STATIONARY) A a ”@1355 LA
RAILROAD POWER PLANT I
USED 3y 5 NY "UMBER TRACKS) —-I—+—-I— RADIO STATION i
LR D (ANGLE OPERATING COMPANV STATE ROAD GARAGE 3
USED Iv MI: NUMBER TRACKS) F‘=P=‘==‘=I SEASONAL INDUSTRY ‘5
COMPAN E THAN o“- OPERATING MINE SHAFT :1 . ,
RIGH'rs 3:0: SAME 0“ WAGE“ OPEN MINE 53‘ 42—")
AV T
RAILRDAo (Non TRACKAGE R'Gmg GRAVEL PIT I To HOMER 42%“):
FRIVATELV o I mm“ + + + STONE QUARRY V
WNED Iuno- “an -—I— __ _A_ " — - _
I“II-ROAD s1- STOCK YARD [I ———————————
M ATIDN I 00° HORTON
Mom 5” OIL OR GAS WELLS oo
RA DE CROSSING _._"_,_
ILROAD A30 WELL @RINE) o. .
M V: ROAD _,__«£__,_ . u I
“-3vo BELOW m TANKS ...
”'LRDAD TUNNEL ' ’“"“‘ CLUBS (GO—GOLF OR COUNTRY CLUB.
‘H‘TH— H.C.—HUNTING CLUIF. F.C.-FISHING
HIGH CLUB, S.c.-GUN CLU )
WAY BRIDGES ATHLETIC FIELDS OR AMUSEMENT A
(20 To 300 F PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS. ETC.
GENERAL T’ LENGTH) INTENSIVE RECREATION AREAS A 7’0 M‘NCHEST
9““le =53: SMALL PARKS (SR-STATE, 5"
(so: 23*: (LR-COUNTY, M.P.—MUNICIPAL)
GEN 0 FT. LENGTH OR OVER) FAIR GROUND, RACE COURSE,
“AL : I SPEEDWAY Q
DIIAVIIIRIDGI: 2”“: CEMETERY ' I-)
SPENSIDN can. STATE POLICE SUBSTATION * ”V
ARCH "— INDIAN RESERVATION 4
Tags: on Gm: —1—’#= CAMP OR LODGE A
R
2%,: $3” 53“”. 2 I 4 S T 45
DAMS URI CAM . .
PICNIC GROUNDS OR ROADSIDE TABLE A g
“”4 Mm ROAD I BATHING BEACH A HANgVER
““4 wn SCENIC SITE [1 ‘
HOUT ROAD
4%- BIRD SANCTUARY 9
CITY AND VILLAGE GAME FARM 9
m7 GAME PRESERVE Q
:TWITOL ® FISH HATCHERY E 3
0mm" SEAT O c c c - CAMP 15 Z
CITIES AND VILLAGES O LIGHT (NAUTICAL) 3X 3 <
l LIGHTHOUSE fi 0 Z
IMTED cm, 0,, “Lu“ as; _, .. AIRWAY BEACON LIGHT * I LAJ
-- LANDMARK LIGHT BEACON *. I...
u." FOREST RANGER STATION 5 .J I
Como“MED COMPACT FOREST SERVICE LOCKOUT STATION 0 < (I)
g GAUGING 0R PUMPING STATION 8 U <
ROADSIDE SPRING 1:
FOREST NURSERY-EXPERIMENTAL ””5"” 3
STATION 0
U.$.C.G. STATION .
U.s. LIFE SAVING STATION I NDA I.I ES ARE 5 TO IGNATE THE LI ITS OF-
I PIPE LINE. GAS m-u—om— HlLLS DALE R.3W. CONSERVATION PROJECTS. ONLY COLOREQQZW R [W CO LENAWEE
ACKSOAIST "W‘Lmh°“- ~~mL~~ AREAS ARE PUBLKILANDS. - ' - -
ATE OWNERSHIP JUNE I, 1957

   

Ri'E' M A P 2 R25. ’
\E‘REEVBYl/IICHIGAN STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT H E L P UNMMRFD AREAS ARE PRIVATE LANDS" P R E V E N T F O R E S T ~

“('1

IRES

 

 

 

 

 

 

0/ \\’/

 

INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RE

LAKE INVENTORY MAP

AREA-695- ACRES
OUTLINE AND SOUNDINGS s/I

JACKSON COUNTY 9/I2-I4/I940 T. 4

 

SWAINS LAKE

U// \I//\

SEARCH (9 ® _ I ,.

DIVISION OF FISHERIES MICHIGAN CONSERVATION DEPT.

(III
l/ll
\
{x

IH‘

9/40 I
\u/ ‘-
5.,R.3W.,5EC.3,4 \\\\ ®

 

 

\u/

/
656E

/
a
J
.1

JACKSON co.
'UILIC PAIR

~ IAYHOUSK

@

I”,

   

   

. covznzo
74ml:

 

. IATHOUIE

TWENTY-FIVE BRUSH SHELTERS IN 5 GROUPS
OF 5,15 INSTALLED MARCH,I949. EACH GROUP
OF 5 S ELTERS IS A ROW SET PARALLEL TO
CONTOURS.

   
 
   
  
       
       
  
   

\U/ I“!

(III

Ci)
0
\‘\\

I {III

I\‘\

l\\‘

VEGETATION
T Floating
I Emergent
- Submergent
SHORE FEATURES
= Road
I Cottage
-I Dock 2:. Grovel
IIII Steep Slope Ii] Diving Tower
N Brush 1.: Outlet
\II/ Marsh tlnlet
© CuItIVO‘I’cd land
Posture or Cleared
® Wooded
STATIONS
@ VegeToTion
[3; Temp. ochem. analysis
73R Plankton
Bofiom sample
® F'Ish sample.
1:1: Brush shelTer

 

MAP 3

SWAINS LAKE. Jackson Co.T.4$., R.3W., sec. 3,4

 

 

 

TABLE XIII

61

OWNERSHIP STATUS OF LAKES INVENTORIED AND CLASSIFIED*

 

 

 

Public Semi - Private Private
Clark Ackerson Fink
Clear Batteese Cranberry, Little
Crispell Brill Horseshoe
Freymuth Cranberry
Gillette Farwell
Grass Goose
Hoffman Mud
Leeke Round (45A.)

Lime Stony
Lime, North Sweezey
Lutz Tims
Merkle Trumbull
Olcott Welch
Olcott, Little White
Pleasant Wilbur

Pond Lily (34A.)
Pond Lily (67.5A.)
Portage

Portage, Little
Price

Round (66.5A.)
Round (155A.)
Schoolhouse
Swains
Vandercook
Vineyard

Walz

Wamplers

Wolf

Wolf, Little

 

 

 

*No responsibility is ace
of the ownership status given.
are based on personal judgment

epted for the legal accuracy
The interpretations listed
and knowledge.

62

TABLE XIV

JACKSON COUNTY LAKES PLANTED WITH TROUT*

 

 

 

Farwell Hinman Lime Swains
1958 - — Brook Rainbow
Rainbow
1957 Rainbow — - —
1956 Rainbow — Rainbow Rainbow
1955 Rainbow _ Brook Rainbow
Rainbow
1954 Rainbow — Brook Rainbow
Rainbow
1953 Rainbow Rainbow Brook Rainbow
Rainbow

 

 

 

 

 

*From fish planting records

of Conservation, 1953-1958.

of the Michigan Department

63

TABLE xv
Juno! ovum
urn mums mu“.

(1) lalaad Lakee - Total nuaber 188. i'otal area 10.307 acree.
luber leee than 200 acreo - 177. lore than 200 acree - ll.
Largeet lake - 'a-plero (partially in Leanne county). 730 aeree.
Otber large lakoe - Vinoyard. 56 acreo: Gillette. 350 acroo:
Goooe. 398 acreo; Oraee. 3M acree: Portage.
360 acree: Ploaeaat. 269 acres: Olark. 580
acroe: and Volt. 376 acreo.

Ialud Itreaao - (l) i'etal aileo of otreaao - 32!.
Great liver drain about ROI equate aileo in county.
Portage liver iraino about 103 «an nileo in county.
lalaaaoee liver iraine about III «we ailee in county.
laioia liver drain about 72 eqeare aileo in county.

Ground 'ater - Unearvoyed. but oubetantial oupplioe. to-perature
.bu‘ 51'e

Peter Doll - Lt lrooklyu on the liver Raisin.

(I) Ionicipal lupplieo - (All in otato are euporvioed by State Dept.
of Health).
Grace Lake. Jacteon. Iouthora lichigan State Prioon. lreoklyu.

concord. and lpriaport fro- velle.

(l) 'atereile lecreatioa Aroae (Itate) «-
Public Iiabia‘ litoe - fetal of 17.2 acroo. 1.500 feet frontage

on 2 lakee.
Parke - moo. one-half aile fro-tap on la-plore Lake (partially
in Woo and laohteau Oountieo). Iaterloe ltato
leereatieu Area. 13,573 acreo. on Di; Portage Lake.

0. I. leather laroau Itatiea -
Jaoteea - Average annual precipitation 31.56 inchee.

I. I. leelogical hrvey'stro- Mu Station -

Great liver at Jack-on (22 yoare of record)
lax. iiecbarce - 1,070 cubic feet per eecend.

Iia. “tonal-(e - 9.2 cubic foot per eeoeal.
Avg. diooharge - 123 cubic feet per oeceal.

Irriptioa - 23 Iyet-e irriptin; 1169 acres.

1 Coaeervatioa Depart-out Publications
:2; lichigan Dopartaent of Health Records and Publication

 

*Obtained from the Michigan Water Resources
Commission in 1958.

., 2. l
- . I '5
- n. ..
5‘": )r .
.. "1- i la
.' _I

gr? .
.. ' , g l _ I! "q I." L:):y:am\
, ‘U .
mas—emu

mg? 3' %:3
3W~MS€F

.. Q.

” Ls