commun- -m‘ , A . . . , .u- v . . ‘. ~ . . .. .. u . _~ . g. . v .1 ‘ . . "I .‘ ‘1 LE ERARY Michigan State University L _,l f lllllll'llllll run-en's 3 1293 00060 6370 ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled PERE MARQUETTE RIVER ANGLER SURVEY AND BROWN TROUT EVALUATION presented by Kyle Morse Kruger has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master degree in Science /¢/4 ,// 774/ Major professor Date July 29, 1985 0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES W Sam I b the 5. k , - T‘I“ ‘ ULJJCL VAL; :‘1 '. . e u mm [13:31 9 9 050316 1999 1 a n 'h ) “l . ‘3 w R ' . .‘5 i . ' ' :v. Q ‘ I 1 m . . a“ RE “TURNING MATEP‘ALS Place in book droo to remove this checkout from your record. FIP'ES will be enarged if bebk 15 returned a ter the date StdeEd bGiOW. «F___-_E._.__ ‘1. PERE MARQUETTE RIVER.ANGLER SURVEY’AND BROWN TROUT EVALUATION BY Kyle Morse Kruger A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1985 ABSTRACT PERE MARQUETTE RIVER ANGLER SURVEY AND BROWN TROUT EVALUATION BY Kyle Morse Kruger A year long creel survey and brown trout ($3139 trutta) evaluation was conducted on a portion of the Pere Marquette River near Baldwin, Michigan in order to examine the use patterns of a free flowing coastal stream which experiences runs of anadromous trout and Salmon. The Pere Marquette River fishery has changed drastically over the past 100 years, a function primarily of land use patterns, changes in the watershed and introduction of exotic species. The research area was open year round to trout fishing and was divided into four sections (F,C,A and B). Section F and section C were seven miles in length with section F being restricted to use of "flies only" as bait. Sections A and B were four miles in length and were not restricted by bait types. The estimated angler trips were 13,142 (P), 2,254 (C), 2,409 (A) and 1,045 (B). The estimated angler hours were 56,260 (P), 7,818 (C), 6,999 (A) and 3,217 (B). The estimated harvest was 6,933 (F), 732 (C), 366 (A) and 36 (B). Estimated overall catch per effort was .1230 (F), .0963 (C), .0523 (A) and .0112 (B) fish per hour. The anglers primarily fished for rainbow/' trout/steelhead.(§; qairdneri) and salmon (Oncorhynchué/ gmgh). Brown trout were only sought by 3.6% of the ang/ rs interviewed. The brown trout population appears to be declining in abundance in portions of the river but shows some stability in other portions. The Pere Marquette was estimated to have an average abundance of 155 fish per acre with 60 fish being eight inches or greater in length. The number of rainbow trout appears to be increasing in the river with an estimated average abundance of 3,205 fish per acre with 84 being eight inches or greater in length. The brown trout in the Pere Marquette exhibited more rapid growth after age II than the average for several Michigan trout streams. To My Father ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Pere Marquette River creel survey was a unique combined effort. This project brought together the efforts of concerned sportsmen, fisheries students, and trained professionals. Several of Michigans sport fishing groups, most notably Trout Unlimited, Federation of the Fly Fishermen, and Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fishing Association joined with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Fisheries Division, the‘United.States Forest Service and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University to conduct this survey. In addition to the financial support given to this project by the sport fishermen, I would like to thank them for their field assistance and dedication to Michiganfis salmonid resources. Specifically'I would like to thank Richard Buss, Chairperson of the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited, for his support throughout the project and the following organizations for their contributions to the project: Paul Young Chapter of Trout Unlimited George Mason Chapter of Trout Unlimited Jackson Chapter of Trout Unlimited William Mershon Chapter of Trout Unlimited Jackson Bensley Chapter of Trout Unlimited Kalamazoo Chapter of Trout Unlimited Flint Chapter of Trout Unlimited West Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited Upper Peninsula Chapter of Trout Unlimited iii Red Cedar Fly Fishers Anglers Club of Chicago Great Lakes Sub-Council of the Fly Fishing Federation Lake County Property Owners Association Trout and Salmon Foundation Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club Thanks must also be give to Meryl "Zimmy"INolph whose historical comments and.perspectives on the river were most interesting. In addition to the sportsmen, Mel Goldie, District Ranger - Huron-Manistee National Forest, for his assistance and providing the Young Adult Conservation Corps personnel; Norm Carpenter and Kim Archer: whose assistance was greatly appreciated. Taylor Polomis and James Dexter were student interns who helped on this project. I would like to make a special note of thanks to George Allison, whose efforts greatly enhanced this project. ‘Without his assistance this project whould not have been possible. I would also like to thank the members of the Institue for Fisheries Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan for the preperation of the creel survey data and their guidance and assistance throughout the project. Special thanks to James Ryckman and Dr Carl Latta whose help was especially'useful. In addition, the various people of the Department of Natural Resources who have contributed to the project including Dave MacLean and.Ra1ph Ray. The acknowledgements would not be complete without a great deal of thanks being given to my major professor, Dr William Taylor and commitee members Dr Donald Garling iv and Dr Patrick.Muzza114 Their assistance, guidence, and patience was extremely helpful and greatly appreciated. Last and.most importantly, to my'wife Joyce, for the support and understanding she gave me throughout the entire project. She was the source of love, affection and moral support. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................... xiv INTRODUCTION ...................................... l REGIONAL HISTORY .................................. 3 TROUT AND SALMON IN THE PERE MARQUETTE RIVER....... 8 STUDY SITE ........................................ 15 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................. 18 Angler Counts ................................ 18 Angler Interviews ............................ 20 Angler Harvest ............................... 22 Population Estimates ......................... 24 Volunteer Help ............................... 26 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................ 28 Creel Survey - Sections F and C .............. 28 Creel Survey - Sections A and B .............. 49 Brown Trout Population ....................... 64 SUMMARY ........................................... 93 LIST OF REFERENCES................................. 95 APPENDIX A......................................... 98 APPENDIx 8.00.00.00.00...00.0.0.0...0....0.0.000... 101 vi Table 1. LIST OF TABLES The angler count sheet used to record the number of anglers present and the particular activities in which they were involveduuu.u. The angler interview sheet used to record the information gathered during the interviewing process. Information was coded directly onto this sheet Formulas used to estimate catch.per effort, number of angler hours, number of angler triPS' and harvestOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Total monthly estimated shore and canoe fishing hours for section C and Section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... Monthly catch per effort ratios for primary species creeled from sections C and F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. .All estimates are in number of fish caught and creeled per hour. Two standard errors are in parentheses............. Overall monthly catch per effort for section C and section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses............. Angler hours, catch per effort, effort per mile, and number of fish harvested for selected Michigan streams...................... Total monthly estimated shore and canoe fishing hours for sections A and B from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.0.00.00.00.00...OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO Monthly catch per effort ratios for the primary species creeled from April through December 1982. .All estimate are in number of fish caught and creeled per hour. Two standard errors are in parenthesesu.n.u.u.. vii Page 19 21 23 32 33 35 46 52 53 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. A1. A2. Page Overall monthly catch per effort for section A and section B from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses............. 54 Fifteen Michigan trout streams ranked by average number of brown trout eight inches or greater in length. Estimates are in number trout per acre rounded to whole numbers. The Pere Marquette River estimates were calculated using data from.the 1973 and 1981- 1983 samples................................... 83 Fifteen Michigan trout streams ranked by average number of trout eight inches or greater in length. Estimates are in fish per acre rounded to whole numbers. The Pere Marquette River estimates were calculated using data from the 1973 and 1981-1983 samples........................................ 84 Average number of trout per acre for 15 northern Michigan trout streams. Estimates are in fish per acre rounded to whole numbers. The Pere Marquette River estimates were calculated using data from the 1970, 1973 and 1981-1983samples..................... 86 Average total standing crop of trout in 15 northern Michigan trout streams. A11 estimates are in pounds per acre. A11 estimates are in pounds per acre. The Pere Marquette River estimates were calculated using data from the 1973 and 1981-1983 samples.0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 87 Average fall weights of brown trout from 14 northern Michigan trout streams. A11 estimates are in pounds. The Pere Marquette River estimates were calculated from information collected from fish captured in 1982.00.00.000000000000000000000000000000...... 89 Non-fishing fishermen hours for section F from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 101 Estimated boat catches for section F from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheBGSOOOO0.000000000000000000.0.0.000.COO 102 viii Table A3. A4. A5. A6. A7. A8. A9. A10. A11. A12. Page Estimated shore catches for section F from April through December 1982, Pere Marqeutte River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 103 Estimated total Catches for section F from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 104 Estimated boat catches for section A from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors in parentheses.................................... 105 Estimated shore catches for section A from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors in parentheses.0..OOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 106 Estimated pier catches for section A from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 107 Estimated total catches for section A from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 108 Estimated boat catches for section C from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheseSOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIIOOOOOOOO... 109 Estimated shore catches for section C from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in ParentheseSOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 110 Estimated pier catches for section C from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in Parenth6868000000000000cease-000.000.0000..soso 111 Estimated total catches for section C from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 112 ix Table Page A13. Estimated boat catches for section B from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 113 A14. Estimated shore catches for section B from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 114 A15. Estimated pier catches for section B from April through December 1982, Pere Marqeutte River, Michigan. Two standard errors in parentheses.................................... 115 A16. Estimated total catches for section B from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 116 A17. Summary of catches for all sections from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors in parentheses.................................... 117 A18. Anglers by county of residence (1:) for all sites from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 118 A19. Anglers by county of residence (8) for section F from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 124 A20. Anglers by county of residence (as) for section A from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 129 A21. Anglers by county of residence (%) for section C from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 133 A22. Anglers by county of residence (8) for section B from APril through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 136 Table Page A23. Bait types used (1;) in all section from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 138 A24. Bait types used (as) in section F from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 139 A25. Bait types used (it) in section A from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 140 A26. Bait types used (it) in section C fron April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 141 A27. Bait types used (%) in section B from April through Decmber 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 142 A28. Species sought by anglers (t) in all sections from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 143 A29. Species sought by anglers (t) in section F from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 144 A30. Species sought by anglers (%) in section A from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 145 A31. Species sought by anglers (t) in section C from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 146 A32. Species sought by anglers (t) in section B from April Through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 147 xi Table Page A33. Estimated boat catches for section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 148 A34. Estimated shore catches for section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in pareentheses................................... 148 A35. Estimated total catches for section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 149 A36. Estimated shore catches for section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 149 A37. Estimated shore catches for section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses.................................... 150 A38. Anglers by county of residence (%) for sections F, A and C (separate estimates for section A and no estimates for section B were possible) from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 151 A39. Bait types used by anglers (%) for sections F5 A and C from.January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 153 A40. Species sought by anglers (8) in sections F, A and C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 153 A41. Anglers by county of residence (t) for section F from January through December 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in paretheses....................... 154 A42. Bait types used by anglers (%) in section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 156 xii Table Page A43. Species sought by anglers (it) in section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 156 A44. Anglers by county of residence (is) for section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 157 A45. Bait types used by anglers (is) in section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 157 A46. Species sought by anglers (%) in section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses...................... 158 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Pere Marquette River study sites in M1Chigan00OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO Estimated number of angler trips for section C and section F from April 1982 through March 1983. Pere Marquette River, Michigan.......... Estimated number of angler hours for section C and Section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan........... Total estimated angler harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length for section C from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michgan....................... Total estimated angler harvest of fish ten inches or greater in length for section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan.u.uuu.u.n.n.n. Total estimated monthly harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length and catch composition for section C from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. The height of the bar represents the total catch and the divisions within the bars show the relative composition of the catch by species............................... Total estimated monthly harvest of fish ten inches or greater in length and catch composition for section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. The height of the bar represents the total catch and the divisions within the bars show the relative composition of the catch by species............................... Species sought by anglers (%) in section C from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan.n~u.n.n.u.umu. Species sought by anglers (%) in section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan.n.u.n.n.n.u.u. xiv Page 16 29 31 36 37 38 39 40 42 Figure 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Bait types used by anglers (%) in section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan...................... Bait types used by anglers (85) in section C from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Page 43 marquetteRiver' MiChiganeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee44 Estimated number of angler trips for section A and section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan.. Estimated number of angler hours for section A and Section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan.. Total estimated angler harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length for section A from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan...................... Total estimated angler harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length for section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan...................... Estimated monthly harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length and catch composition for section A from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. The height of the bar represents the total monthly harvest and the divisions within the bars show the relative composition of the catch by speciesn.uu.n.u.uu.u.u.. Estimated monthly harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length and catch composition for section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. The height of the bar represents the total monthly harvest and the divisions within the bars show the relative composition of the catch by speciesn.uu.u.u.un.u.u.. Species sought by anglers “(8) in section A from.April 1982 through December 1982, Pere marquette River, MiChigan0.000000IOOOOOOOOOOOOO Species sought by anglers (%) in section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere marquette River, Niobigan0.000IOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO XV 50 51 55 57 58 59 60 61 Figure 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Bait types used by anglers (%) in section A from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan................... Bait types used by anglersl(%) in section B from April 1982 through December'1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan.n.u.u.u.u.u.u. Total estimated number of brown trout for the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals........................... Estimated number of brown trout which were eight inches or greater in length at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals........................... The number of individual brown trout observed during electrofishing at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan.u.uuu.n.u.u.u. The estimated abundance of brown trout at the M-37 Public Access (1.87 acres), Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club (1.15 acres), and Gleason's Landing (1.49 acres) sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan..... .. Estimated brown trout abundance per acre for the four sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, MiChiganO0.00.00.00.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Total estimated number of rainbow trout for the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals........................... The number of individual rainbow trout observed during electrofishing at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan................. Estimated number of rainbow trout which were six to eigth inches in length at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michiganu.u.u.n.u.u xvi Page 62 63 65 66 68 70 71 72 74 76 Figure Page 30. The estimated abundance of rainbow trout at the M-37 Public Access (1.87 acres), Pere Maruqette Rod and Gun Club (1.15 acres), and Gleason's Landing (1.49 acres) sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan..... .. 77 31. Estimated rainbow trout abundance per acre for the four sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan...................... 78 32. Estimated number of juvenile salmon for the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals........................... 79 33. The estimated abundance of juvenile salmon at the M-37 Public Access (1.87 acres), Pere Maruqette Rod and Gun Club (1.15 acres), and Gleason's Landing (1.49 acres) sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan..... .. 80 34. Estimated juvenile salmon abundance per acre for the four sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan...................... 81 35. Growth of the Pere Marquette River brown trout compared to the average growth for fifteen Michigan trout streams................. 88 xvii INTRODUCTION The Pere Marquette River is one of the few remaining free flowing coastal streams in Michigan. It has been designated a."wild and scenic" river and is highly regarded for both its environmental and esthetic qualities (Goldie 1982L. The Pere Marquette‘River has long been considered a high quality trout stream, attracting numerous anglers to fish for its resident and anadromous salmonid populations. In recent years, however, many trout fishermen who frequent this river have expressed a perceived decline in the quality of the brown trout (Salmo trutta) fishery. This perception prompted the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited to join with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Fisheries Division, the United States Forest Service, and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University to begin an investigation into ,the history, angler use and harvest and brown trout population levels of the Pere Marquette River. Little information is available about the history of the Pere Marquette River; The information that is available is important to this study because man's influences have had significant physical and biological impacts on natural systems. The Pere Marquette River is no‘exception. The effects of man on this system have not only changed the Pere Marquette itself’but also the species of fish which populate it. Of all the major salmonids which exist in the river today, not one of them is endemic. They were all introduced for some social or economic reason. Therefore, if we are to understand this river system today, an understanding of what has happened previously must be considered. This thesis presents some of the local history, a history of the fishes in this river system, results of a year long creel survey which began in April 1982 and ran through March.l983, and.population estimates of the Pere Marquette River brown trout conducted in 1970, 1973, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984. It may help to bring to light some of the important factors that happened previously and what some of the conditions are now. Although this is an incomplete overview of a tremendously complex and dynamic system; it will serve as a foundation to build on and improve our understanding of the Pere Marquette River. REGIONAL HISTORY Written evidence of the early history of the Pere Marquette River and surrounding areas is sparse. The earliest humans to inhabit the region were the hunters and gatherers of the Ottawa Tribe. Their arrival in Michigan has been estimated to have occurred between 2000 and 6000 years BJL (Hawley 1980, Dunbar 1981). These early inhabitants lived off the land and did not begin to develop sedentary methods of agriculture until about 100 EAL, which was brought about by the influences of the Hopewell Indians (Dunbar 1981). Archeological examinations of Mason County have shown that there were at least fifty-two indian villages during the prehistory of the region since the retreat of the most recent glaciers to cover Michigan (Hawley 1980). The first whitemen in the Great Lakes region were French explorers and Jesuit missionaries, beginning in the 1620s when the explorer Etienne Brule arrived (Dunbar 1981). The earliest explorers concentrated their efforts in the region of Lake Superior around what today is Sault Ste. Marie. Jean Nicolet explored portions of the Lake Superior basin and portions of the northern lower lakes in the 16303 but he did not go ashore on the lower peninsula. There was continued exploration of the upper lakes by the French, but it was not until 1669 that any record of explorations of the lower peninsula began, when a group of whitemen traveled up the eastern shore of what is today Michigan (Bald 1961, Catton 1976, Dunbar 1981). In the fall of 1672 Louis Joliet was commissioned to explore in the west a large river now known as the Mississippi. They were hoping that the river emptied into the Pacific Ocean and would provide the French with an all water route to the orient. He was informed that a young Jesuit missionary - Father Jauques Marquette - would be interested in joining him on his journey. Jolliet went to Father Marquettels mission in St. Ignance to ask Father Marquette to join him on his trip. Father Marquette anxiously agreed. In the spring of 1673 they left the mission for Green Bay then moved on to the mighty river in the west. When they reached as far south the mouth of the Arkansas River the group decided that the river did not enter the Pacific Ocean and did in fact empty into the Gulf of Mexico. During the return trip north Father Marquette and Jolliet met members of the Illinios tribe and stayed until fall to preach to these indians. Later the explorers continued north to Green Bay where Father Marquette stayed to recover from an illness contracted on their journey and Joliet went on to the east. The following fall in 1674 Father Marquette returned to visit and preach to the Illinios tribe. The next spring his illness became worse and he wished to see his mission in St. Ignance one more time before he died. Father Marquette departed the Illinois tribe and headed north along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. ‘When he felt that his illness had become critical, he asked to be put ashore. The party came ashore near the mouth of a small river entering Lake Michigan, shortly after which Father Marquette died. The Pere Marquette River is named after him. The location of his death is thought to be where Ludington, Michigan now stands (Bald 1961, Chtton 1976, Dunbar 1981), although some historians believe that Father Marquette died where Frankfort, Michigan is today (Dunbar 1981). The interior of the state of Michigan was not explored by these early visitors to the region, although it is felt that French and American trappers who followed did frequent inland areas (Bald 1961, Dunbar 1981). The first recorded evidence of inland exploration in the Pere Marquette region begins in 1835 in the area on the southside of Pere Marquette Lake near Ludington, Michigan where a fur traders cabin was built and trappers brought beaver skins to be sold (Hawley 1980). Beaver trapping began to decline around 1840, about the time a new form of industry began to move into the area, lumbering. Timber became an extremely important commodity to this area of Michigan in the mid to late 18005. At times there were sawmills able to produce up to 100,000 board feet of lumber in a single day of operation. The majority of the sawmills were located on Pere Marquette Lake near the mouth of the Pere Marquette River, although there was at least one mill in operation as far upstream as 2.5 miles east of the Mason and Lake County line (Hawley 1980). The river was used to float logs to the sawmill consequently almost all logging was done in close proximity to the river. The technology of the day also required lumbermen to use iced roads to sled the logs to the river'where they were stacked.until the weather warmed and ice melted. When the ice melted efforts were concentrated on moving the logs to the sawmills in the spring high water. In 1874 the Flint and Pere Marquette railroad was completed and operated between Ludington and Port Huron, Michigan (Hawley 1980, Dunbar 1981). This event was significant in that streams were no longer needed to transport logs to the sawmills. All a lumbermen needed to do was get his logs to the railroad or railspur to have them transported overland. ‘Water transportation was still cheaper and used but it was no longer a necessity. .As more track was added to the state, new types of equipment to haul timber overland were developed. "Big wheels", large wheels upto fifteen feet high were built which could skid logs in the warmer months and narrow gauge trains built on temporary tracks made almost any timber stand available for harvesting. The railroads and other developments were leading the state away from waterway restricted part time (winter only) lumbering practices of earlier years (Catton 1976). Baldwin, Michigan was originally named Hanabal in 1870 after an early settler; later the name was changed to honor Michigan Govenor Henery Baldwin (elected for two terms, served from 1868 to 1872). Baldwin had a population of 536 by 1883. In 1897 a hotel was constructed ‘at Hart, Michigan just south of the Pere Marquette River which catered almost exclusively to sportsmen (Smedly 1935). In 1901 the Hotel Pere Marquette was built near the tracks of the Flint and Pere Marquette railroad in Lake County. The Hotel Pere Marquette was also claimed to be a sportsman's haven (Trout Unlimited 1982). Fishing in the river has continued to be popular. Guided fishing trips were available and very popular through the mid-fifties (Meryl Nolph, Riverside Property Owners Association, personal communication). Today Baldwin has a population of approximately 900 and is considered to be the "headquarters" for fishing the Pere Marquette River. There are ten motels in the area, three canoe liveries and numerous private sportsmen's clubs. The popularity of fishing in the Pere Marquette River has continued to increase every year, with more and more anglers coming to fish for the wide variety of salmonids inhabiting it. TROUT AND SALMON IN THE PERE MARQUETTE RIVER Before the introduction of exotic species of salmon and trout in the late 1800s, the primary coldwater sportfish in the Pere Marquette River was the Michigan grayling (Thymallus tricolor). This species only occured in Michigan north of a line extending from near Muskegon to Tawas City in the lower peninsula and in the Otter River in the upper peninsula (Smedley 1935). These fish were reputed to have no equal in beauty, flavor, and fight (Smedely 1935). The popularity of this species was shortlived. During the mid-18003 they were easily caught and heavily'harvested, with some anglers using four or five flies on the same line and catching fish on each fly. In addition the booming logging industry of the mid-18003 caused irreparable harm to the habitat of these fish. Grayling were spring spawners depositing eggs in shallow water, where their vulnerability to scouring by sawlogs was great. Thus, in rivers which were used to transport logs to a sawmill, grayling lost their viability'(Smedley 1935). In order to appease the anglers who could no longer catch their favored grayling in lower peninsula coldwater streams, the Michigan Fish Commission began attempts to propigate grayling. Because grayling were spring spawners, efforts to propigate grayling conflicted with the Michigan Fish Commissions work with whitefish (995339235 clupeaformis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Whitefish and lake trout were commercially important and therefore given top priority. Efforts to propagate grayling were minimal (MFC 1881). In 1879 the Michigan Fish Commission began stocking brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), which were endemic to Michigan's upper peninsula, in streams which were devoid of grayling or whose populations were declining. Brook trout reportedly did very well in these streams establishing themselves and growing at very high rates. The Pere Marquette River was stocked with 1,000 brook trout in 1882. With several of its tributaries received additional fish (MFC 1883). The first brown trout eggs were imported from Germany into the United States in 1883. A portion of this shipment was sent to the United States Fish Commission Hatchery at Northville, Michigan. The eggs in this first shipment were in poor condition and those eggs which did hatch and survive were held at the hatchery. In February of 1884 a second shipment of eggs arrived from Germany. This second shipment of eggs was in much better condition which resulted in much greater hatching success and survival of fry. On April 11, 1884 4,900 brown trout fry were taken to be stocked in the Pere Marquette River (Clark 1885). These brown trout have been considered the first release of brown trout into North American waters (Luton 1985). 10 The Michigan Fish Commission continued to increase the diversity of game fish by introducing 25,000 rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) into the Pere Marquette River in 1885. These trout were a Mount Shasta strain from California, then refered to as California trout and thought to be non- migratory (MFC 1887). Thus in a period of just over four years the Pere Marquette River was stocked with three exotic species of trout. During this time efforts.at rehabilitating grayling continued. However, in 1888 the United States Fish Commission declared: "The grayling will not stand domestication", and by 1893 abandoned their efforts to restore native grayling to Michigan waters (Smedley 1935). At this time many anglers blamed the new exotic species of fish, especially'brown trout, for the graylings decline. Brown trout were considered destructive and guilty of eating all the desired species. Brook trout were considered least objectionable to grayling anglers. In retrospect, it seems that changes to the catchment basins may have altered the stream environment and changed the dominant trout species. By 1895 brown trout had reached such disfavor with anglers and the Michigan Fish Commission that propagation and stocking was stopped in 1895 because: "A few years of experimentation and experience have convinced us that the brown is inferior in every respect to either brook or rainbow. With few exceptions, this conclusion is in harmony with the verdict of anglers and epicures everywhere. A number of streams have 11 been sucessful 1y stocked with brown trout: but being outclassed, from every point of view, by two available species of equal range of habitat, we deem it poor policy to continue their propigation. The stock of adult brown trout has therefore been turned adrift and no further distribution of this species will be made." (MFC 1897). Brook trout and rainbow trout continued to be stocked with the greatest effort going to brook trout. Blackspotted trout (Salmo clarki) were stocked in the Big South Branch of the Pere Marquette River in 1895. Today these are known to be the same species as cutthroat trout but in 1895 they were thought to be a distinct species (MFC 1897). There was a second plant of blackspotted trout in the Pere Marquette River in 1911 but this plant was in the Little South Branch (MFC 1913). There is no record of any recoveries of either plant of blackspotted trout (Smedley 1935). In 1905 the first steelhead trout were imported and some of these fish stocked into the Pere Marquette River. Steelhead trout were considered a different species than the rainbow trout, much the same as blackspotted trout and cutthroat trout. The confusion seems to have come about due to their migratory behavior (MFC 1907). As catchment basins and rivers in Michigan's lower peninsula continued to change due to increased agriculture and deforestation to the detriment of more preferred species, there was a resurgence of demand for brown trout and the stocking of this fish resumed. The Pere Marquette 12 River was again one of the first streams to be stocked, with 30,000 brown trout released into the Little South Branch of the Pere Marquette River in 1909 (MFC 1911). During the early 19008 brook trout declined from the effects that the increased agriculture and deforestation were causing. While the catchment basins continued to change and brook trout declined, brown trout and rainbow trout continued to do well. In 1914 the Michigan Fish Commission recognized steelhead trout as being a rainbow trout. This was based on observations by Dr David Starr Jordan who had previously concluded that they were different fish and now considered the only difference to be that steelhead trout were a migratory form of rainbow trout. He claimed that he had: "seen perfectly formed rainbow trout from supposedly steelhead eggs and perfectly formed steelhead from supposedly rainbow trout eggs." (MFC 1915). By 1927 brook trout had all but disappeared from such famous brook trout rivers as the Pere Marquette River. Many years before were noted for the nearly extinct Michigan grayling (Smedley 1935). Heavy stocking of fish, especially brown trout, to Michigan streams continued and fishing in the fourties and fifties was reportedly very good. Tens of thousands of legally'sized (8-9 inch) fish were being stocked throughout the state with many fish going into the Pere Marquette River. There were stories of limit catches on almost every 13 trip with some people claiming that you could catch your fifteen fish limit in fish over twenty inches without much effort (Meryl Nolph, personal communication). Although stocking of Pacific salmon into the Great Lakes and.tributaries was attempted for several years in the latter part of the nineteenth century, there are no records of plants in the Pere Marquette River before 1967. In 1967 as part of a rehabilitation program for the Great Lakes, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources introduced Pacific salmon into the Pere Marquette River as part of a put, grow and take fishery (MDNR 1967). There is only one recorded stocking of pacific salmon in the Pere Marquette River and that was of coho salmon (Onchorynchus kisutch) in a tributary of the Big South Branch of the Pere Marquette River called Ruby Creek in Oceana County. In subsequent years, chinook salmon (Onchorynchus tschawytscha) have wandered into the Pere Marquette River and established a viable and naturally reproducing population with substantial runs each year (Carl 1982), most notably since 1975 when large numbers of the salmon were reported in the mainstream far upstream from where the Big South Branch enters the Pere Marquette River mainstream (Meryl Nolph personal communication). In 1977 the Michigan Department of Natural Resources began to stock Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Pere Marquette Rivera These fish came from Quebec (1977) and Quebec and Sweden (1978). The most recent effort to l4 establish Atlantic salmon in the Pere Marquette was focused on the sebago strain which is a landlocked strain (MDNR 1982). In 1984 the Michigan Department of Natural resources stocked 20,000 skamania rainbow trout (summer run steelhead) into the Pere Marquette River in an effort to provide improved summer trophy trout angling. Annual stocking of brown and rainbow trout (listed as both rainbows and steelhead) were still being made in the Pere Marquette River and its tributaries through 1984 but brook trout have not been stocked for many years (MDNR 1980, MDNR 1981, MDNR 1982, MDNR 1983) STUDY SITE From M-37 to Lake Michigan the Pere Marquette River is open year round to trout fishing. The riparian lands along the river are almost entirely privately owned and access to the river is highly restricted. The study sites began where the Pere Marquette River flows under the M-37 highway bridge just south of Baldwin, Michigan (Figure 1). It was divided into two major and two minor sections. The major sections were longer than the minor sections and surveyed for the entire year whereas the minor sections were surveyed for only nine months. The first major section (FL, was the special regulation "flies only" area which runs from M-37 downstream for approximately seven river miles to Gleason's Landing. The special regulations include: 1. Use of artificial flies only as bait. 2. Ten inch size limit for trout and salmon (increased from eight inches in other areas) 3. No kill of brown trout and atlantic salmon when regular trout season is closed. 4. Reduced creel limits on salmon (reduced from five to three) and steelhead (reduced from five to one) when regular' trout season is closed. The first half of this section is easily waded and contains numerous riffle areas. These riffles provide high quality salmonid spawning habitat that attracts large numbers of 15 16 womcrou s to J fir Figure l. The location of the Pere Marquette River study sites in Michigan. 17 the anadromous species during the spawning seasons. The lower half of section F contains few riffle areas, deeper water and primarily sand substrate. There are five public acess points on section F, four of which give access to the upstream half of section F. The second major section (C), begins approximately four river miles downstream from section F. This section runs from Bowman's Bridge Landing to Rainbow Rapids Landing, a distance of approximately seven river miles downstream. This area is similiar to the lower half of section F with deeper water, sandy bottom and few riffle areas. The endpoints of this section are the only public access points although one private location does allow some access in the middle of section C. Most of section C and the lower half of section F is difficult to wade. The two minor sections, A and B, for the most part are physically similar to section C although there is a long wadable area at the beginning of section A. Section A is the area between section F and section C which runs for approximately four river miles between Gleason's Landing and Bowman's Bridge Landing. The second minor section runs from Rainbow Rapids Landing to Upper Branch Bridge Lending and is also approximately four river miles in length. MATERIALS AND METHODS Angler Counts To estimate the number of angler hours on the Pere Marquette River a series of counts were performed. Two different methods were used during the year-long study. Canoe counts were used for the first nine months (April 1982 through December 1982) and anglers per vehicle counts were used for the last three months (January 1983 through March 1983) to estimate the number of anglers present. Canoe counts were conducted by launching a canoe at the farthest upstream access point of the section to be counted.then floating downstream.recording the number of anglers and canoes passed until the end of the section was reached. The categories used were (Table 1): 1. Fishing from a canoe. 2. Fishing from shore. 3. Fishing while wading. 4. Fishing from a pier. 5. Not fishing, but with fishing gear on shore. 6. Not fishing and without fishing gear. 7. Non-fishing canoe, pleasure canoeist. .All anglers that were fishing without canoes were counted as individuals. Anglers who were using a canoe or pleasure canoeist were counted as units, with the same value as an 18 19 Table 1. The angler count sheet used to record the number of anglers present and the particular activties in which they were involved. 111515 om my SECTION FLOATED TIE-E 21911159. CC’I‘EHTS FISHING nor nsmm Fron canoe 5 Canoe with fishino near l l Fron shore ”1th fishing near on shore l 1 Hadinn Canoe w/o fishinn near Fron bridnes «- —_- _.'.— 20 angler. For example, if two wading anglers were passed that would count as two in the "Fishing while wading" category. If two anglers in a canoe were passed, that would count as one in the "Fishing from a canoe" category. To avoid confusion, as to how many in the canoe were or were not fishing, at the time of the interview, the occupants of the canoe were asked.how“many were actually' fishing. This gave an estimate of the average number of anglers per canoe. Angler per vehicle counts were used to estimate the number of anglers present during the winter. Snow and ice made conducting float counts unsafe during the winter. 'Vehicle counts were made by recording the number of anglers per vehicle when interviewed. Then the number of vehicles the access points of the section being checked were counted and multiplied by the average number of anglers per vehicle which gave an estimate of the number of anglers present in the section. Angler Interviews Angler were interviewed at various points along the study sections. Attempts were made to interview all anglers at the completion of their trip. A trip was considered the time an angler spendt fishing from when they left the access point until they returned and completed fishing at that site. The information gathered during the interviews was (Table 2): 1. Section fished: F,C,A, or B 21 Table 2. The angler interview sheet used to record the information gathered during the interviewing process. Information was coded directly onto this sheet. I County YES I M: 2 I S 3 a S 0 7 I 9 \e H 1: l3 :4 12 u n 1. f0: |ol FL] [1 I I lJ D Uj I D E E." E El. ' 99-" I- :7: " . ° "" g . . . . 2' o: .. On a» .- Name 5 3997955- ,_ E3 1. angler is tnrcugn Section 2 z ‘ >“‘ "I z 0 “-3 3' access oin' -ark fished o =0 '“ <‘“ 62 '°‘ 9‘4 ' - p ".“‘ l 2 c: " c3 a... g gt“, a 1, 1f net, earn a 2 leip code: 2 ‘“ 7+ :9 2o 21 :2 2234 22 24 :7 29 r 29 so EM] [LL] I I l l I 1' Male Female INT USED SPECIES SOUGHT . . 3’ 3’ 3’ BLACKEN IN THE TIME FISHED Time fished ma :1 I 2 a 4 s a 7 I 9 to n :2 I 2 a 4 S a r a 9 IO 1: 12 ’ounded to the L1 LLI l I 1 1111! I_Lv t 11 I 1 u 1 1 1 . -° LLJ'lTIJJF' i‘fiiTJT'TI'EIjTrIIIQIItI 01.71.. J nearest half time ' I (1/2) hour. fished AM MORNING NOON gveumc 9M SPECIES CCF :9? LG‘F'H wT CU? LGTi—l wr CUP LQTH w‘r CLIP mm W} acuP LGCiLJ‘Ll'..CL.Z. KCr-O SALMON 0 7 l _ emu-30w 1'2. 10 1 52CWN T2. 0 2 I ERCCK TR. 0 3 I .aKE TRCUT o 4 ’ l I Can-wool: s o a | l Araasrac ‘_s. a | 9.} | l l e.=.-:=.2:$§__|.*l3-- I I l 1 .l l -.--_-..-_ l. .-_. -1... l l l l l I l l l l I l in County 12 u :7 2. 01:01:11 1[1EJEJ D (BEES N action E BE . '53 :7: 34 Name 5 address: E 5g If angler is through ished g ,5 g =3: 33 '5. .E 5% at access point. mark 3 g: >- g3 .5, in _ g33:11, if net, mark a 2 2:0 code: i Cg :9 29 2: 22 22 24 2s 2s 27 :9_ :9 :2 an m 1 1 Male Female MIT USED SFECIES SOUGHT , , 2; 2: 3, BUCKEN IN THE TIME FISHED Timefished 12111341147291.1112:22434729121111: roundedtotne CODES. 1. Ali :.: l.'.f‘.:;.;.:,t.:,:.;.:. nearest half Time 1/2) hour. fished AM MORNING NClCN EVENING PM SPEClES CODE :uccfaim W? 1(th LQTH w? ICUP (971-! W? 1C!!! 15m wr 1cm 1 rm w’ tC'.:P ZCHO SAlMCN o 7 l ' 3 l Iamaow TR. 0 l l l IICWN TI. 0 2 HMOK TR. 0 3 .AKE TROUT o 4 :14th S. o 4 ATLANTIC S. 0 9 I MENOMINEE t 2 | l l l 22 2. Date and day of the week. 3. Name and address (this was optional). 4. If the angler was fishing from shore or canoe. 5. If fishing from a canoe, how many of the occupants of the canoe were fishing. 6. If the angler had completed fishing at that site. 7. The sex of the angler was recorded. 8. The time the angler was out to the nearest one half hour and time of day. 9. Number and species of fish caught and kept. Fish which were caught but released were not counted in this survey. Each fish that was creeled.was weighed and measured for a total length and a scale sample was taken for age and growth analysis (Bagenal 1978). Angler Harvest Estimates of angler harvest, catch per effort, and total effort were calculated at the Institute for Fisheries Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. These estimates were made using the information gathered during angler counts and interviews. The information was broken down into two strata, weekdays and weekend days, from which estimates were made for each month of the survey. Monthly estimates and variances for weekdays and weekend days were calculated separately. These estimates and variances were summed to give overall monthly estimates and variances. The calculations used for the estimates are listed in Table3. 23 Table 3. Formulas used to estimate catch per effort, number of angler hours, number of angler trips and harvest. Catch where: C/H/S - NI - where: MIC - DS - FH/D - where: EAH - H/T - where: C/E - BAH I per Effort by Species - (C/H/S)/(NI) summation of catch per hour per species number of interveiws Angler Hours - (MIC)(DS)(FH/D) mean of the instantaneous counts number of days in strata fishing hours per day Angler Trips - (EAH)/(H/T) estimated angler hours mean number of hours per trip Harvest by species - (C/E)(EAH) Catch per effort by species estimated angler hours 24 ggpulation Estimates Population estimates for resident brown trout, rainbow trout, and juvenile salmon populations were conducted for four consecutive years between 1981 and 1984 by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. .A mark-recapture estimate was used at four locations in section F; M-37 Public Access Site, mouth of the Baldwin River, Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club, and Gleason's Landing (no 1984 estimateL. No sites were routinely sampled in other sections due to access problems and deep water; Samples to estimate trout abundance for at the mouth of the Baldwin station for 1970 and 1973 were available from.the Depatment of Natural Resources. The 1970 records did not give size distributions of the fish captured, but all subsequent sample records did. The Chapman variation of the Petersen formula was used to calculate population abundance estimates from the electrofishing data. This formula was used because it is considered to be unbiased when the number of recaptures is low (Ricker 1975). The equation was of the form: N - ((M + 1)(C + l))/(R + l) where: N - estimated population size M - number of marked fish C - number of fish captured on the recapture run R - number of recaptured fish Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated 25 using the number of recaptures as possion variables (Ricker 1975). Because of the low number of trout captured in most inch length classes, overall population estimates were made by grouping together all fish in each category (marked, unmarked, or recaptured) then calculated using the Chapman formula. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources reviewed these findings and expressed a concern that this method might be biased due to the difference in vulnerability to the gear of the various sizes of fish. Smaller fish are considered less suseptible to the electrofishing collection techniques than larger fish (Nielsen and Johnson 1983). In order to minimize the bias the Department suggested that the trout abundance estimates should be made by breaking the sample into small size groups varing from two to six inches depending on the number of recaptures. The estimates from each group were summed to give an overall estimate. Only one sampling station fulfilled the Departments requirements for enough fish in acceptable size groups, the mouth of the Baldwin station, and even then not all size groups were usable. Only brown trout eight inches or longer and rainbow trout six to eight inches in length had large enough samples to satisfy the Departments requirements. The Department also considered the Bailey estimate more appropriate yielding a more conservative estimate. The Bailey estimate differs from the Chapman estimate by not adding 1 to the number of marked fish (M) 26 and has the form: N - (M(C + l))/(R + l) where M,C and R are the same as the Chapman formula. The Department further explained that the population estimates were intended for management purposes only. The Department's main emphasis for collecting the data was to examine the fishable size portion of the population, fish which were eight inches and longer; Thus the Department considered estimates for young of the year and yearling fish to be of questionable value. The overall estimates were used to calculate the averages in the comparsion tables enabling all sites to be taken into account. The use of the overall estimates from all sites allowed a more represenitive average to be generated than using only the estimates from the Baldwin site. The grouped data was used for calculating the estimates used in preparing the figures which include eight inch and longer brown trout and six to eight inch rainbow trout. Volunteer Help Volunteer help was utilized as part of the data collection process for the creel survey. Most 'volunteers were members of one of Michiganfis larger sport fishing organizations: Michigan Council of Trout Unilimted, Fly Fishing Federation, or Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fishing Assosiation. Volunteers collected 342 or’21,4% of the angler interviews and 45 or 20% of the angler counts, 27 a substantial addition to the number of interviews and angler counts collected by the regular field crew. Volunteers worked on weekends in the spring and fall during the anadromous fish runs when angling pressure was at peak levels. Normally the volunteers came in groups which consisted of a local chapter from one of the sport fishing organizations. Group size ranged from six to twenty. On Friday evenings the volunteers were given an orientation to the study, told where the study sites were, and told how to fill out interview and count sheets. ‘Volunteers were issued the necessary equipment at that time and were informed where to return the equipment when finished. Each volunteer was allowed to chose two of four possible four hour shifts for a total of eight.hours per weekend for each member of the group. After each group was finished all interviews and count forms were inspected to see if they had been properly completed. All forms which lacked "vital" information or were improperly completed were discarded. Approximately 25% of the interview sheets were rejected. The total number of interviews and float forms disccused above were properly completed forms only. 28 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results and discussion are divided into three sections. The first section contains the creel survey results from the two major sections F and C, the second section contains the results of the two minor sections A and B, and the last section contains the results of the brown trout population evaluation. Creel Survey - Sections F and C The estimated number of angler trips (two standard errors in parentheses) was substantially different between the two primary sections (Figure 2). There were a total of 2,254 (761) angler trips occurring in section C and 13,142 (3,103) angler trips in section F. Peak months of activity in section C were April, May; August and September for a total of 1,431 angler trips. A similar use pattern was apparent in section F with 2,281 angler trips occurring in April and May and 6,964 angler trips during September and October. Special regulations, higher accessability, and greater amount of spawning habitat are most likely the reasons why more anglers chose to fish in the "flies only" section F. Peaks in the angler trips appeared to indicate a marked preference to fishing when anadromous species were on their spawning runs. In the spring anglers fished for steelhead and in the fall they fished for salmon. 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 ESTIHRTED NUMBER OF RNGLER TRIPS 500 29 l l l T T l 1 1 .r l """ T 1 RPR MAY JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JHN FEB HRR MONTHS Figure 2. Estimated number of angler trips for section F and section C from April 1982 through March 1983. Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 30 The estimated number of angler hours followed the pattern of angler trips (Figure 3). There was a total of 7,818 (1,912) angler hours in section C and 56,260 (14,035) angler hours in section F. The division of angler hours between canoe and shore fishermen (this includes wading anglers) were distinctly different in the two sections (Table 4). Canoe fishing accounted for 1,498 angler hours in section C and 433 angler hours in section F. The opposite was noted for shore fishing with 6,444 shore fishing hours being estimated in section C and 55,827 shore hours in section F. This difference in shore versus canoe fishing was primarily a function of the physical characteristics of the two sections and the number of access points. Section F is shallower, comparatively easy to wade and has a greater number of access points. This combined with its greater concentration of fish during spawning runs accounted for the fact that 87.8% of all angler hours recorded during this study, were fished in section F. The majority of the hours fished were recorded in the upper half of this section. Monthly catch per effort for all species combined went from a low of zero to a maximum of .2222 fish per hour in section C and from a low of .0166 to a high of .2036 in section F (Table 5). The highest catch per effort was in May for anglers in section C whereas in section F anglers acheived the highest catch.per effort in October. Overall catch per effort for the year in section C was .0936 31 ._ 20 0’) O z a"; 17.5 D D I .— - 15 (O a: D 2 12.5 a: 21’ z 10 I 11. ‘3 7.5 a: 11.1 ‘2 g 5 D U E 2.6 E .— 8 o HPR HRY JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JRN FEB HRR HONTHS Figure 3. Estimated number of angler hours for section C and section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 32 .mmo.e~. msm.sm ASSN. mmv Ahsc.ssc mmh.mm .msm.s. mas.s .msa. omv.s .Hns.sc vee.e sauce .o~m.~. hso.s Isms. «NH .msm.~. mss.o .mms. owe .mms. q~s .mms. mme noun: Isms. nos .02 o .mms. mas .mmm. man .8. c .amn. can sumsunmm .st. mmv .o. o .oqo. ems .mss. mm .o. c .ses. mu moms sumscmn .SNH. cs .8. o lows. as AoNH. as No. S loud. as “mnemooo 15o». oo~.H .o. o .Asom. oo~.H 1mm». was .Hmsc mos .52». oNs umneo>oz .ees.s. www.ms Acme. ems .eee.s. mee.ms Acme. was .oms. om .emq. mmm. umnouoo .Nwm.os. Nem.qs .HSH. em .Hmm.os. sss.es .~os. oom.s 14m“. ems less. oss.s nonsmudmm Ammo. Ham .0. pm Ammo. sea .ome. Ham .ssmc ens .Hmm. ns~ unsosa .mes.s. -o.a .o. o .mqs.s. -o.s Imps. omm .mma. and .mos. NHH uses Immo.sc mvm.s .o. o .mmo.a. mvm.s .mmm. Noe .om~. vs~ .qomc sv~ mean .omo.s. SSH.~ .o. m .omo.H. sss.~ .NHS. one .omm. os~ .Nom. o~q an: .osm.v. «25.0 .o. aw .osm.q. mam.o ANmm. mms.s .mo~. mas .oma. ovo.s Need Hflud< Hmuoa mocmu muonm Hmuos mosmo ouosm s :oeuowm o consumm 20cc: .mmmwnucmumm ca mum muouuw pumocmum 039 .cmqwnoaz .um>fim muumcqumz mumm .mmma nous: nqsoucu mama Haum< you O coauoom can m coHuoom you mason usflcmfim mocmo can muonm pmameflumm hanucoe Hmuoa v wanna 33 Table 5. Monthly catch per effort ratios for primary species creeled from sections C and F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michgan. A11 estimates are in number of fish caught and creeled per hour. Two standard errors are in parentheses. Month Species Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Chinook Salmon C F C F C F April .0420 .0428 .0556 .0049 .0000 .0006 (.0527) (.0407) (.1166) (.0063) (.0000) (.0011) May .2222 .1099 .0000 .0392 .0000 .0000 (.3709) (.1286) (.0000) (.0680) (.0000) (.0000) June .0346 .0067 .0996 .0490 .0000 .0000 (.0585) (.0171) (.1530) (.0764) (.0000) (.0000) July .0880 .0088 .0840 .0078 .0000 .0000 (.1600) (.0185) (.0957) (.0232) (.0000) (.0000) August .0000 .0202 .0000 .0050 .1437 .0101 (.0000) (.0321) (.0000) (.0135) (.6471) (.0193) September .0042 .0001 .0000 .0037 .1032 .1028 ' (.0100) (.0001) (.0000) (.0070) (.1451) (.1066) October .0000 .0013 .0000 .0000 .0000 .2023 (.0000) (.0017) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.1369) November .0000 .0833 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0133 (.0000) (.0858) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0227) December .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0067 (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.2267) January .0000 .0501 .0000 .0000‘ .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.1170) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) February .0714 .0856 .0714 .0000 .0000 .0000 (.1860) (.0856) (.1860) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) March .0000 .0530 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.0522) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) Total .0367 .0207 .0247 .0043 .0322 .0981 (.0293) (.0098) (.0293) (.0035) (.0455) (.0506) 34 (.0646) and .1230 (.0546) in section F (Table 6). The estimated harvest from section C was 732 (472) fish while 6,933 (2,551) fish were creeled from section F. The contribution of the various species to the catch differed between the two sections. The three primary species caught in section C exhibited a fairly equal distribution (figure 4) while chinook salmon comprised 79.6% of the catch in section F (Figure 5). The distribution of catch over time for section C showed even peaks of harvest in the spring and fall (Figure 6), whereas in section F, the spring peak is substantially less than the fall peak of salmon harvested (Figure 7). This disproportionate number of salmon harvested in section F compared to other species harvested in section F was most likely due to the large number of these fish concentrated in the spawning areas during the fall. Angler preference was calculated as the percentage of anglers which sought specific species. In section C, rainbow trout (mostly steelhead) were prefered by 54.3% of anglers interviewed (Figure 8). Trout anglers having no species preference comprised the next largest catagory followed in decending order by anglers for brown trout, salmon or trout (no species preference), and Atlantic salmon respectively. Although salmon anglers only comprised 14.5% of the total number of anglers, they accounted for 34.4% of the fish harvested from section C. Rainbow trout were also the most sought after fish in 35 Table 6. Overall monthly catch per effort for section C and section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses. Month Section F C April .0495 .0977 (.0441) (.1328) May .1491 .2222 (.1527) (.3709) June .0556 .1342 (-0809) (.1769) July .0166 .1720 (.0323) '(.2059) August .0353 .1432 (.0440) (.6471) September .1059 .1074 (.1083) (.1460) October .2036 .0000 (.1372) (.0000) November .0967 .0000 (.0943) (.0000) December .0667 .0000 (.2267) (.0000) January .0501 .0000 (.1170) (.0000) February .0856 .1429 (.0237) (.2853) March .0553 .0000 (.0521) (.0000) Overall .1230 .0936 (.0546) (.0646) 36 CHTNOUK SRLHON 252:3444X RHINBON TROUT 287:39.ZZ BROHN TROUT 193:26.3Z Figure 4. Total estimated angler harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length from section C from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 37 CHINOOK SRLHON 5519:79.6Z Figure 5 . COHO SRLHON 2:02 BRUHN TROUT 244:3.SZ BROOK TROUT 6=0Z RRPNBOH TROUT fi__ 1152:16-7Z Total estimated angler harvest of fish ten inches or greater in length from section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 38 200 - 175 CHINOOK SRLHON RRINBOH TROUT BROHN TROUT 150 125 100 75 50 ESTTHRTEO NUMBER HflRVESTEO W QE) 7 ”r T 7 1 l RPR HEY JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JRN FEB HRR HONTHS Figure 6. Total estimated monthly harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length and catch composition for section C from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. The height of the bar represents the total catch and the divisions within the bars show the relative composition of the catch by species. 39 4000 2000. 300 200 ESTIMATED NUMBER HARVESTED 100 400 a Fugue 7. CHTNOOK SRLHON RRINBOH TROUT BROHN TROUT Ifl JD ////21 I \\ WW T HONTHS T 1* ’1 T BPR HRY JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JRN FEB H D— R Estimated monthly angler harvest of fish ten inches or greater in length and catch composition for section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. The height of the bar represents the total monthly catch and the divisions within the bars represent the relative composition by species. 40 BROHN TROUT 11:10.62 RRINBOH TROUT 55:54.31 TROUT 20:19.42 snLnon 6:5 982 SRLHON 0R IROUI nTLnNTIc snLnON 9-8.74 1-0 97 Figure 8. Species sought by anglers (%) in section C from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 41 section F, with 45.7% of anglers fishing for this species (Figure 9). Salmon anglers comprised a much larger percentage of the anglers in this section, 31.3% of which had no species preference. Salmon or trout were sought by 1£L9% of the anglers followed by chinook salmon anglers and trout anglers (no species preference). Salmon anglers which comprised 41.3% of the anglers fishing in section F harvested 79.6% of the fish creeled in this section. While more salmon were harvested from section F than any other species, rainbow trout were still the species prefered by most anglers interviewed. This is most likely a function of the much longer season for this species. The salmon fishery in the Pere Marquette River is essentially limited to September and October whereas small rainbow trout can be caught all year and steelhead generally are available from November through May. There was a distinct difference in fishing methods used between sections. This is undoubtly due to the bait restrictions of "flies only" in section F. However, only 91.3% of the anglers in this section actually’claimed.to have fished with flies (Figure 10). Other bait types used were combinations of artificial and natural baits, flies and wigglers, lures, spawn, worms and spinners. In section C flies were also popular, but worms were the most commonly used bait (Figure 11). Spawn, spinners, spoons, and combinations of natural and artificial baits also used in this section was. 42 BROHN TROUT TROUT . 128:9.62 “‘3 ‘1 CHINOO? SRLHON 9.945% RHINBON TROUT 805:45.7Z SRLHON 454331931 TROUT O; SRLHON Figure 9. Species sought by anglers (%) in section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 43 FLIES 1207:91.2% HORHS 7:0 957. HRTIFICIRL RNO NRTURRL “=3 9374 SPINNERS SPRHN 10:0 0723/ 1:07. IOOLE FLIES HNO N 43-3 9270 LURES 11309874 Figure 10. Bait types used by anglers (%) in section F from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 44 HORH3__, 38:33.31 NIOOLERS 231972 srtuneas ///”“““’ 9:7.82 svauu 24:212 spoons 8-7z FLIES ' 27:23.31 FLIEB 8ND NIOOLERS ‘30 RRTIFIgTRL RNO NRTURHL Figure 11. Bait type used by anglers (%) in section C from April 1982 through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 45 The Pere Marquette River fishery is supported by both resident and anadromous fish and receives a substantial amount of fishing pressure. Fishing pressure in section F was estimated at 8,054 angler hours per mile per year. In section C angling pressure was less at 1,117 angler hours per mile per year. Fishing pressure in section F was greater than the 1981 creel survey data for four AuSable River sites. Two sites on the mainstream and two sites on the north branch (MDNR personal communication). Fishing pressure on the Grand River near the 6th Street Dam in Grand Rapids, Michigan was substantially higher at 53,106 angler hours per mile per year (Table 7). Also higher was the Rouge River with 9,952 angler hours per mile per year (MDNR personal communication). The Grand River and Rouge River were only surveyed September-November 1982 and March- April 1983 therefore this data represents minimum estimates. The AuSable creel survey sites are for the most part rural highly esthetic areas with no runs of anadramous fish. The Grand River site, an urban fishery, and the Rouge River site near Grand Rapids, which has a strong urban influence, are essentially supported only by andromous species. Therefore angling presure on these systems cannot be compared directly but it does give some indication that the Pere Marquette is a highly utilized fishery resource. omHH. omo abm ooo40 m.oa uDOHu :3OHm omHH. 0mm Hhm ooceo m.oa HDOHB Had couucm ou mcflahmuu vomo. oma.m mmm.v oom.>m >.m usoua c3oum memo. omh.m mmm4v ooo4>m n.m usoue Ham wawxmz op couusm Aamaav Emmuumcame .H0>am mansmsd mmoo. HoH.H Nev.a oom.oa o.HH usona czoum M mead. omm.a mev.a oo~4wa o.HH usoua Ham mmoHHOM on m.msmsmm memo. omm.s mom.m oom.me m.m 05000 osoum mama. omm.m mom.m com.ma m.m usoue aflm m.smemm Ou nocmm .Hmmav nocmun sumo: 4H0>Hm wanmmc< auommm uaosmo was: manor looses. 00am Hmm HODEOZ mom umfimcm mo numcmq noumo memo: massaxoummm .memmuum cmqflEOfiz UmuOOHmm How ©0Om0>umn swam mo Hones: can 402:: won unemmm .uuonwmm Mom noumo .muson uwamsd ”N. magma 47 oooo. o woo mam.m o.¢ coefimm wmoo. Ha woo mam.m o.¢ usoua :3oum mHoo. om «om ham.m o.¢ moacoeamm Ham nocmum Home: on 3onsawm memo. mmH om>.H mom.o o.v GOEHmm omoo. oo omm.a moo.o o.¢ usoua c3oum mmmo. oom omm.H oom.o o.v mpwsoeflmm Had m.:m&30m ou m.:0m60HO Amoma Hmnemoooummma Hflumfim ovumsqumz mumm mmmo. mmm maa.a ham.> o.m soEHmm memo. mom mHH.H mam.m o.m usouu ssoum ammo. mme eHH.H eHm.e o.e moacoesmm HH< 3oncwmm on m.cmezom memo. Hmm4m vmo.m mmm.om o.m sosamm meoo. vvm vmo.m wmm.om o.> usouu c30um omma. mmm.o vmo.m onm.om o.m moficoEHmm HH< m.cowmmHO op mmnz .mmma noumznmmae Hauoao .00>am ouuoooumz 0005 boomem unmsao was: meson Immense 00am mom nonesz mom Hmamsm no nuocwq noumu memo: mumsmxouam< Omscwusoo u wanna 48 mmmo. ooo4m mmo.m mom4mm o.v cosmmm «woo. ohm mmm.m mom.mm o.v usoma c3omm mmmo. mom.m mmm.m mom.mm o.m omcoemmm Ham boom m0>mm mums 0» oflmomommno Ammmm Hmmmmlmmom comm: pom momm moneo>021mmmm monemummmv .m0>mm mmsom moom. www.mm oom.mm mmm.oom o.m cosmmm mmoo. mmm oom.mm mmm.oom o.m msome c3omm momm. mmw.vm oom.mm mmm.oom o.m momcosmmm HH< numozmwummm om ummmuw cum Ammom Hmmm<1mmom 20mm: can mmmm moneo>021momm monemmmmmo 4mm>wm ocmmo 0000mm unmomo 0mm: muoom Amommeo 00mm mom mmnesz mom mmmmc< Mo smmcwq nommu mmsom ODMEonmmm< pmscmucoo m mmnma 49 Creel Survey - Sections A and B There were 2,409 (1,833) angler trips in section A and 1,045 (341) angler trips in section B (Figure 12). Peak months of activity for both sections were April, June and September for 2,087 trips in section A and 971 trips in section B. .Angler preference for larger anadromous species was also exhibited in these two sections with 86.6% of angler trips in section A and 92.9% of angler trips in section B taking place during the spring steelhead and fall salmon spawning seasons. As with sections C and F, the pattern of angler hours followed the pattern of angler trips (Figure 13). There was a total of 6,999 (4,565) angler hours in section A and 3,217 (995) angler hours in section B. The percentage of canoe fishing hours was similar between sections. Section A had 578 (8:7%) caone fishing hours and section B had 233 CL3%) canoe fishing hours (Table 8). In section A, monthly catch per effort for all species combined ranged from zero to .3333 fish per hour while in section B monthly catch.per effort for all species combined ranged from zero to .0563 fish per hour (Table 9). Overall catch per effort for the nine month period was .0523 (.0638) for section A and .0112 (.0132) for section B (Table 10). The basis for the substantial difference in maximum catch per effort between sections is not explained by the data collected. Estimated total number of fish harvested from section A was 366 (377) fish (Figure 14) and 50 BOO 700 4 ""SECTION B """ SECTION B 600 a 500 - 400 a 300 4 200 - ESTIHHTEO NUHBER 0F RNOLER TRIPS 100 - 1 I I I' I I I I I RPR HRY JUN JUL BUD BEP OCT NOV DEC Figure 12. Estimated number of angler trips for section A and section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 51 2200 2000 - ""8ECTI """ SECTI N R N 5 GO 1800 - 1600 - 1400 _ E 1200 - 1000 .1 . BOO - 600 1 400 - ‘1. 1' ‘1 ESTIHRTEO NUHBER OF RNOLER HOURS 200 - ‘~ I I I I I I RPR HRY JUN JUL RUG BEP OCT NOV DEC NONTHS Figure 13. Estimated number of angler hours for section A and Section B from April 1982 through March 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 52 Table 8. Total monthly estimated shore and canoe fishing hours for sections A and B from April through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses. Section A B Shore Canoe Total Shore Canoe Total April 2,124 6 2,130 1,440 22 1,462 (3,452) (0) (3,452) (808) (0) (808) May 1,663 0 1,663 300 1 301 (2,792) (0) (2,792) (168) (0) (168) June 304 69 373 242 60 302 (508) (102) (518) (135) (120) (181) July 18 0 18 12 0 12 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) August 274 405 679 270 0 270 (457) (685) (823) (151) (0) (151) September 1,560 60 1,620 720 150 870 (240) (120) (268) (404) (300) (503) October 450 38 488 0 0 0 (300) (150) (335) (0) (0) (0) November 18 0 18 0 0 0 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) December 10 0 10 0 0 0 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Total 6,411 578 6,999 2,984 233 3,217 (4,508) (719) (4,565) (941) (323) (995) 53 Table 9. Monthly catch per effort ratios for the primary species creeled from sections A and B on the Pere Marquette River, Michigan April 1982 through December 1982. All estimates are in number of fish caught and.cree1ed.per'hour. Two standard errors are in parentheses. Month Species Rainbow Brown Coho Chinook Trout Trout Salmon Salmon A B A B A A April .0559 .0014 .0000 .0007 .0000 .2000 (.0559) (.0022) (.0000) (.0014) (.0000) (.0000) May .0000 .0266 .0000 .0299 .0946 .0000 (.0000) (.0589) (.0000) (.0685) (.2057) (.0000) June .1609 .0000 .1609 .0000 .0000 .0000 (.3917) (.0000) (.3919) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) July .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) August .0000 .0556 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0177 (.0000) (.1189) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0426) September .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) October .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) November .3333 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 (.3889) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) December .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) Total .0263 .0078 .0086 .0034 .0157 .0017 (.0346) (.0111) (.0180) (.0063) (.0424) (.0037) 54 Table 10. Overall monthly catch per effort for section A and section B from April through December 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parentheses. Month Section A B April .5590 .0021 (.1213) (.0030) May .0661 .0565 (.2057) (.0920) June .3217 .0000 (.6382) (.0000) July .0000 .0833 (.0000) (.0833) August .0177 .0556 (.0426) (.1189) September .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.0000) October .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.0000) November .3333 .0000 ' (.3889) (.0000) December .0000 .0000 (.0000) (.0000) Overall .0523 .0112 (.0638) (.0132) 55 BROHN TROUT 60:16-32 RRINBOH TROUT 185350 4 474 COHO SRLHON 110:29 99% CHINOOK SRLHON 12:3-2Z Figure 14. Total estimated angler harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length for section A from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 56 36 (41) fish from section B (Figure 15). IDistribution of catch over time was different between sections. In section A most fish were caught in April, May and June (Figure 16) whereas in section B the number of fish caught was evenly divided between spring and fall (Figure 17). The reason for this difference is not readily apparent. Possibly few salmon built redds in this section, limiting the ‘vulnerability of fish to passage through this section. The most prefered species in section A was rainbow trout sought by 73.9% of anglers. Anglers who sought trout with no species preference accounted for 14.8% of anglers in this section. Other species sought were salmon, brown trout, salmon or trout with no species preference, and non- salmonids (Figure 18). In section B rainbow trout were also the most prefered species by 66.7% of anglers. Anglers also fished for trout no species preferences, brown trout and salmon or trout (Figure 19). There were many types of baits used in section A. Worms were used by the greatest percentage (33.3%) of anglers with spinners and spawn the next most common bait types. Other bait types used in section A were flies, natural and artificial bait combinations, spoons and lures (Figure 20). Anglers in section B used a less diverse array of bait types. In this section worms were again the most commonly used bait (Figure 21). ‘There was a marked similarity between baits used in all three of the unrestricted areas. In each of these sections worms, 57 RRINBON TROUT 25:59-42 BRONN TROUT 11:30-52 Figure 15. Estimated angler harvest of fish eight inches or greater in length for section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 58 120 .. 100 .. ‘ CHINOOK sntnON RHINBOH TROUT BROHN TROUT cono SHLHON 80. R“ .._I\ R A 40- EST I HRTEO NUHBER HRRVESTEO 20.. \ \Y X‘ \ \\X\\ ‘X \Y‘ X‘X\ \ \\ \XXXXX‘ XXXX \X\\\XY\\\\‘\X\X\X‘\\\\ K \\ Y \‘X\\\\ T T T T T l T RPR HEY JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTHS Figure 16. Estimated monthly harvest of fish eight inches or greater and catch composition for section A from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. The height of the bar represents the total monthly harvest and the divisions within the bars show the relative composition of the catch by species. 20 59 17-5 15 12-5 10 7-5 ESTIMATED NUMBER HARVESTED Figure 17. 835 RRINBON TROUT BRONN TROUT ~7////////////////////2 I I l T RPR HRY JUN JUL RUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 3 O 2 q I m Estimated monthly harvest of fish eight inches or greater and catch composition for section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. The height of the bar represents the total monthly harvest and the divisions within the bars show the relative composition of the catch by species. 60 RRINBOH TROUT 105:73.92 BROHN TROUT 3:29:7- TROUT 21:14 977. SRLHON 10:72 ___SRLTON.RNO TROUT OTHER 1:0.72 Species sought by anglers (%) for section A from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Figure 18. 61 RRINBOH TROUT 20:55-52 BRONN TROUT 2:5-62 TROUT 5:19-92 TROUT RNO SRLHON 2:696Z Figure 19. Species sought by anglers (%) for section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 62 FLIES RNO NIGGLERS, SPINNERS 2:1947. 28:19.87. FLIES 19:13-42 LURES 1:0972 SPRHN 27:19.12 NORNS 42:29-72 SPOONS 6:4 9274 HRTIFICIRL 8N0 NRTURRL 4‘— 16211932 Figure 20. Bait types used by anglers (%) in section A from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 63 SPRHN "5“ 7:23.32 FLIES 9N0 HIGOLE? 1:3-32 FLIES 6:19-92 HORHS 9:29-92 BRTIFICIRL ONO NRTURHL SPINNERS 5:15-52 2:6-62 Figure 21. Bait types used by anglers (%) in section B from April 1982 through December 1982, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 64 flies, and spawn made up the majority of baits used. Brown Trout Population The brown trout population in the study section appears to be declining in abundance. Estimates for the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station from 1970 through 1984 showed a decline in total estimated.number'of brown trout present (Figure 22). In 1970 it was estimated that there were 588 fish at the station and in 1984 there were only 129 fish present. Reasons for this apparent decline are not known. First appearances indicate a disastrous decline but evaluation of the information on fish eight inches and larger indicates that the fishable size portion of the population has not shown as drastic decline as the overall population. ‘While estimates for larger brown trout drop from 229 fish in 1973 down to 112 fish in 1984, there does not appear to be a significant difference in the number of larger fish from 1981 through.1984 (Figure 23). Some form of compensation may have occurred or the population may have stabilized in recent years. However, the last three point estimates seem to imply'a continued but reduced decline. The total number of fish actually observed at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station has declined on every sampling date since 1973. The most notable difference was in the number of young of the year fish (Figure 24). Although the number of fish observed has declined in recent 800 65 700 a 500 a 400 a 300 _ 200 _ ESTIHRTEO NUHBER OF BROHN TROUT 100 a 1\‘ .500 1 T T T T T T T T T T T T l T 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 7B 79 BO 81 82 83 84 Figure 22. YERR Total estimated number of brown trout for the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River , Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals. 66 300 S 250 _ C3 0: P 4 5 o 200 .. a: CD 11. D {5 150 .1 (D I: D 2 1 8 100 5 .— CE 5 .— 8 50 _ O YERR Figure 23. Estimated number of brown trout which were eight inches or greater in length at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals. 67 Figure 24. The number of individual brown trOut observed during electrofishing at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. NUMBER OF IRON“ TROUT “UNDER OF IRON“ TROUT men or snow mom 68 1 . 1 1 1 1 . - 1 1 IO 11 12 13 II 15 16 17 10 19 20 LENOIR [ENCHEST 1931 I 1 l D I I l I A . l I 5 7 B B IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I! 19 2C LENOTE (INCHES) 1982 I I I | I I | I l I | I 9 10 ll 12 13 14 IE 16 17 IB )9 20 LENGTH [INCHES] l l I | | 2 3 4 6 B 7 NUNRFR OF BRONR TROUT HUNGER Of BROHN TROUT 1983 1 . - . . . . 1 9 TC 11 12 13 14 IE 15 17 IE 15 25 LEIDHT (INCHES) 2 3 4 5 5 7 B 5 IO 11 12 13 14 15 IE 17 I! 19 20 LENGTH (IICNEBI 69 years all size classes are still represented, with fish as large as twenty inches being observed in 1984. This indicates that no size class has been eliminated from the population. The remainding sampling stations did not show the steady decline in estimated numbers of brown trout that the mouth of the Baldwin station did (Figure 25). The estimated number of brown trout at the M737 station droped between 1981 and 1982 but remained relatively stable between 1982 and 1984. The estimated number of brown trout at the P.M. Rod and Gun Club station showed fluctuations erratic fluctuations. The estimated numbwer of brown trout at the Gleasons Landing station showed a slight decline but not as drastic as the decline observed at the mouth of the Baldwin station (Figure 25). When the estimates of brown trout abundance from all stations were compared on a per acre basis the population levels appear highest at the mouth of the Baldwin station than the estimates of brown trout abundance at all of the other station for each year sampled (Figure 26). The number of rainbow trout in the Pere Marquette River appears to be increasing at the mouth of the Baldwin station in recent years but the estimates were highly variable (Figure 27). Evaluation of length frequency of the fish actually observed at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station illustrated that a large proportion of the total fish were young of the year fish (Figure 28). The 70 400 ._ 350 .. :3 2 R " soo _ '6 Ewan-37 P.n.s. .5 ~. III-firm. son nun GUN CLUB u 250 t-imansous Lnuomo D " ‘\ z s. = g z s‘ o 200 . “. In ‘. |- x C ‘. 5 s 160 q “‘ w ‘h ------- -- -----—--.-.a 100 '1 “‘ ’.&~,‘ ........... ‘8 *.--~ \~~.~~‘~~ """ \~\.\. 60 " .""~.§.~- ‘~~*__":_ ........... . \'\.\. ‘.‘ro ‘ 0 T T I I 1981 1982 1983 1984 YEHR Figure 25. The estimated abundance of brown trout at the H-B'l Public Access (1.87 acres), Pare Marquette Rod and Gun Club (1.15 acres), and Gleason's Landing (1.49 acres) sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 800 400 300 200 ESTIHRTED NUHBER 0F TROUT 100 Figure 26. 71 Hnoum or THE anLoum q Pin-37 P.n.s. *"M’JI. ROD nun oun CLUB \ *--* (masons Lauomo ~ l I l I l fi T I l l T T I 1 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 77 78 79 80 BI 82 83 B4 YEHR Estimated brown trout abundance per acre for the tour sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michgan. 72 6000 5000 _ .— D O m .— 3 4000 - 8 U m 3 z 3000 .. O U .— C E 2000 - .— a: w 1000 a 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Figure 27. YEHR Total estimated number of rainbow trout for the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals. 73 Figure 28. The number of individual rainbow trout observed during electrofishing at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. mu W I!” IIWI MEI N I'M "G" we W m I'M" 80 SD 40 30 20 10 80 40 30 10 80 3O 10 74 1973 I I I 2 3 4 S 8 7 I 91011121314151817181920 LENGTH (INCHES) 1’81 I I I I I I I 2 3 4 8 8 7 8 8 1O 11 12 13 H 1! 18 17 18 1! 20 LENGTH (INCHES) 1882 I I I I o I l l c I I . ‘ 2 3 4 8 I 7 I 8 1O 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 1| 1' 20 m1” 11"!“1 MFR OF snow VIN! WI 0' I." IIWI 80 50 ID 30 20 10 80 IO 30 10 1883 I ' I I I I I I I Illootl c 2 8 C S 8 7 8 810111213N151817181920 LEMON? I INCHES 1 1.84 I I I l n I I I I O - 1 I 2 3 I 5 8 7 8 8 1° 11 12 13 1‘ 15 18 17 1. 1’ 1° LCWTH IINCI‘Itsl 75 number of yearling fish present (six to eight inch fish) was substantially less than the number of young of the year fish but does refelect the an overall increase in abundance (Figure 29). The rest of the sampling stations showed fluctuations similar to the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station for overall.rainbow trout estimates.(Figure 30). an a per acre basis more juvenile rainbow trout were estimated at the P.M. Rod and Gun Club station than at the mouth of the Baldwin station (Figure 31). Abundance of juvenile salmon was highly variable at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station and was normally' low at the time of sampling (Figure 32). Estimates for the three other stations showed similar low abundances of young salmon (Figure 33). This was most likely due to early migratory behavior of chinook salmon which normally leave the river early during their first year of life (Scott and Crossman 1973). The Pere Marquette system was estimated to have produced an 146,700 salmon smolts in 1979 (Carl 1982). This estimate was second only to the MMskegon River, Michigan for total smolt production for Michigan's Lake Michigan tributaries in that year (Carl 1982). Per acre estimates of juvenile salmon reflected the low and highly variable abundance of salmon between sampling stations (Figure 34). It is critical to remember that the results must be veiwed.within.the studies limitations, especially'potential bias which may have been caused by differential selectivity 450 76 400 .. 350 1 300 .. 250 _ 200 .. :so - 100 _ ESTIHHTED NUHBER 0F RHINBOH TROUT 80 _‘ Figure 29. Estimated number of rainbow trout which were six to eight inches in length at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (1.37 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals. 77 ~14 (D D 2 C 312 o .1 I g.— 510- D a: t— 30.. d3 5. E k 6 _ D (K :3 :4- D 2 D :32- G: E .— $0 .. I I I I 7 I I I I I l r 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 YERR Figure 30. The estimated abundance of rainbow trout at the M-37 Public Access (1.87 acres), Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club (1.15 acres), and Gleason's Landing(l.49 acres) sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 78 10 ‘8 A‘ E \. El"flu-37 P.R.S. g 8 _ \ r-1P.n. ROD FIND GUN CLUB O \ 8"" GLERSONS LRNDING E \ H \‘ 5 \ /A‘ 1?: 6 - \. ./I \ h' \\ o/ \\ u. \ ,/ \‘ O ‘\ ,/ \ \ / \ E ‘\ \\ /' \\\ g 4 .3 \\ \‘ ’/ ‘ : \\\ \ / \. z ‘\ \ / \ :3 ‘\\ ‘\ ,/ \ E ‘x\ x \ E 2 \\ ”,8 .‘ \‘ : d B .‘ \\\ "‘v' ‘e“‘ \‘ w ~ ------- 3.5.; k u ‘7s.-‘ "". ----- ‘ \““ I “B‘ " “am 0 I I I 1981 1982 1983 1984 YERR Figure 31. Estimated rainbow trout abundance per acre for the four sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 79 1000 3 800.3 E _J G: U.) U. D 500 _ 0.”. u.) (D 1: D Z 8 400 5... CI 2 C (.0 DJ 200 0 Figure 32. Total estimated number of juvenile salmon for the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station (15r7 acres), Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Error bars represent approximate 95% confidence intervals. 80 400 a \ \ 350 - ‘\ ‘\ Imam-37 9.9.3. :3 300 q \\ .D‘GLERSONS LFINDINO .J :5 \ \\ g 250 .. \\ s x m \ a: 200 q \ D \ Z \ D \\ g 150 _ \ It.) 100 .. A~“~\_ \\ U \.\‘\ \\ \‘4 Vs ’0‘ 50 .. a ------------------- T‘Qsfik ’,,-1j...a \ ‘-:.\‘:.‘. l": ....... \* ‘-::>‘\ o’.’-: ..... o “‘----------‘.‘,--;$: ———— I I I 1981 1982 1983 1984 YERR Figure 33. The estimated abundance of juvenile salmon at the M-37 Public Access (1.87 acres), Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club (1.15 acres), and Gleason's Landing (1.49 acres) sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 81 300 g 250 - Hnoum or m: BRLDHIN " .. la"4510-37 P.n.s. :3 h-‘Pm. R00 9ND ouu CLUB 8‘; a": ousnsous Lnuomo m 200 .. O M 5 z 150 i D Z Q 33 100 - 2 5‘: m so - 0 J 73 74 75 78 77 7a 79 00 a: 02 ea 04 YERR Figure 34. Estimated juvenile salmon abundance per acre for the four sampling stations, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. 82 of the electrofishing sampling method and/or using overall estimates of the population abundances, taken into account. The results are highly speculative in nature and extreme caution should be observed when appling the results to specific cases. Comparing the average number of brown trout 8 inches or greater in length in the Pere Marquette to the average number in fourteen other Michigan trout streams (Gowing and Alexander 1980) the Pere Marquette River would have a rank of twelfth out of the fifteen streams Cmflfle 11% Although the Pere Marquette River had a relatively low abundance of legal (eight inches and larger) brown trout compared to other streams listed by Gowing and Alexander it had the highest estimate for legal rainbow trout. This estimate combined with the brown trout estimates would rank the Pere Marquette River sixth overall in number of legal trout per acre (Table 12). It should be noted that in the "flies only" section the ranking of legal sized fish would not pertain, because of the increased size limit in effect. In section F there were very few rainbow trout greater than ten inches in length observed during the electrofishing, presumably due to out migration of the juvenile rainbow trout to Lake Michigan. Another point of interest is that these estimates of the number of legal sized fish in the Pere Marquette do no include returning salmon or steelhead adults which was a resource above the estimated 144 fish 83 Table 11. Fifteen Michigan trout streams ranked.by average number of brown trout eight inches or greater in length. Estimates are in number of trout per acre rounded to whole numbers. Pere Marquette estimates are for data from the 1973-1983 samples. Boardman River, south branch 269 Houghton Creek 166 AuSable River 163 Williamsburg Creek 160 Gamble Creek 125 Little South Branch of the Pere Marquette River 123 Poplar Creek 116 Boardman River, north branch 96 Boardman River, mainstream 79 Ausable River, north branch 77 AuSable River, south branch 73 Pere Marquette River 60 Rifle River 49 Pigeon River 11 Hunt Creek 0 Average 104 Average without Hunt Creek 112 Average without Boardman River, s. branch 93 Average without Hunt Creek and Boardman, s, branch 100 84 Table 12. Fifteen Michigan trout streams ranked by average number of trout eight inches or greater in length. Estimates are in fish per acre rounded to whole numbers. Pere Marquette Estimates were calculated from 1973-1983 samples. Brown Rainbow Brook Total Boardman River, s. branch 269 269 AuSable River, mainstream 163 8 3 174 Williamsburg Creek 160 4 3 167 Houghton Creek 166 166 Poplar Creek 116 34 150 Pere Marquette River 60 84 144* L.S.B. Pere Marquette River 123 11 134 Gamble Creek 125 125 Boardman River, n. branch 96 96 AuSable River, n. branch 77 10 87 Boardman River, mainstream 79 4 83 AuSable River, 3. branch 73 6 79 Rifle River 49 49 Pigeon River 11 4 15 Hunt Creek 8 8 * Estimates do not include returning adults of the anadromous species 85 per acre shown in Table 12. When compared to the fourteen other streams for overall trout abundance, the Pere Marquette River had the greatest average abundance (Table 13). This is probably due to the large numbers of steelhead that spawn in the river producing very large numbers of young of the year which remain in the stream at the time of electrofishing. There was a large difference between total abundance of rainbow trout and the number of legal sized rainbow trout that were present during the sampling periods. This difference included losses from smolting and downward migration of juvenile steelhead and total mortality; Total estimated standing crop of trout per acre in the Pere Marquette River was 156.2 pounds per acre. This estimate was second only to Williamsburg Creek which had an average of 159:7 pounds per acre (Table 14). Growth of the brown trout in the Pere Marquette River was slightly below the average of brown trout observed in the other Michigan trout streams (Gowing and Alexander 1980) until the fish reached age 11. After the brown trout reached age 11, they grew faster than average (Figure 35) reaching a mean weight of 2.190 pounds by age IV. This weight at age IV was greater than all of the streams listed by Gowing and Alexander (1980) except one, the south branch of the AuSable River (Table 15). The Pere Marquette River brown trout were fully recruited to the fishery during their third year of life (age II) and no fish were observed 86 Table 13. .Average number of trout per acre for 15 northern Michigan streams. Estimates are in number of fish per acre rounded to whole numbers. The Pere Marquette esimates were calculated.using 1970-1983 samples. Brown Rainbow Brook Total Pere Marquette River 155 3205 3420 * Williamsburg Creek 1936 23 241 2200 Hunt Creek 1682 1682 Boardman River, s. branch 1418 47 1465 Houghton Creek 1136 1136 AuSable River, mainstream 682 144 238 1034 Poplar Creek 901 123 4 1034 AuSable River, n. branch 282 649 931 Boardman River, mainstream 577 304 881 Pigeon River 102 663 765 Boardman River, n. branch 633 76 709 Gamble Creek 585 585 AuSable River, s. branch 312 177 489 L.S.B. Pere Marquette River 365 129 494 Rifle River 81 81 * Estimates do not include the returning adults of the anadromous species. Table 14. samples. 87 Average total standing crop of trout in 15 northern Michigan trout streams. are in pounds per acre. All estimates The Pere Marquette Estimates were calculated using 1973-1983 Williamsburg Creek Pere Marquette River Boardman River, 3. branch AuSable River, mainstream Houghton Creek Poplar Creek L.S.B. Pere Marquette River AuSable River, n. branch Boardman River, n. branch Boardman River, mainstream Hunt Creek AuSable River, 3. branch Gamble Creek Pigeon River Rifle River Brown 152.9 61.1 133.0 104.8 100.6 68.9 63.7 45.7 60.9 48.0 48.5 54.9 9.0 22.0 Rainbow 0.7 95.1 10.0 3.5 Brook 6.1 20.8 2.2 10.6 56.6 7.3 20.3 Total 159.7 156.2 134.5 115.6 100.6 79.2 67.2 66.5 63.1 58.6 56.6 55.8 54.9 29.3 22.0 * Estimates do not include the returning adults of the anadromous species. 88 2 q '——'PERE HHROUETTE RIVER BROHN TROUT HVERHGE 3 1.5 - O z D O 5 ’3' 1 - U 3 005 a: 0 q T l ' ' gr 0 I II III IV Figure 35. Growth of the Pere Marquette River brown trout compared to the average growth for fifteen Michigan trout streams. 9 8 onm.n wmm.v How.m th.N mmN.H mow.o m¢m.o mNH.o mHo.o eoH.H wHo.H mmm.o omm.o mmo.o mao.o qvm.m oNN.H mom.o owv.o mmm.o Nmo.o mHo.o omm.o Nvo.o Hmm.o hha.o mno.o NHo.o omm.m omw.a mmm.o mNm.o mmN.o mHH.o hHo.o hoa.m woo.m mmh.a «hm.o mmv.o mHN.o wNo.o aom.m onm.~ Hmm.a th.H hmv.o ovH.o oHo.o onm.> wow.¢ omo.m mov.m Hmm.H Hmh.o mom.o aha.o Hmo.o mmm.a mmo.H mmm.o oom.o mmo.o hHo.o owm.a vmm.o oa¢.o mvm.o mmo.o NHo.o h¢v.v onm.m mmo.a th.o mmm.o ovH.o omo.o mmh.v mva.v mwm.~ owm.H mmm.o 5mm.o th.o mac.o mam.¢ om~.N mmm.o mmv.o omH.o mao.o Nmm.H omm.o mm¢.o whm.o NHH.o hHo.o omH.N m¢0.H mH¢.o wmo.o bHo.o HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H o “momu0>< xmouo umflmom xmmuu muonmemaHfiflz xmmuu mHnEoU xomuo counmcom Hw>flm muumoqumz mumm .m.m.q cocmnn nocmun emwuumcfime cocoon cocmun Emwuumcwme "mm< Ho>fim commam uw>flm mamam .H0>Hm :mecumom .um>flm unsoumom .um>wm cmecumom .um>am manoms< .Hw>wm manomc< .Hm>wm manoms< muumoqumz mumm omumHsono mums mmumeflumm muumcqumz mumm one .wemmuuw ucouu 5:5:on cumnuuoc v." scum uoouu «Sosa mo mucmfloas HHMH moose/4 .mmma :H omusummo swam scum owuomflfioo coflumsuomcfl anew: .mocsom cw mum mmumeaumm Ham .ma mfinma 90 to exceed four years of age. The effects of anadromous species on the Pere Marquette River brown trout are unknown. Popular belief is that salmon have caused extensive damage to the brown trout population. Most notably interactions between chinook salmon and brown trout have been blamed for the brown trouts reputed decline in abundance since salmon have become established in the river. Taube (1974) observed that during spawning in the Platte River, Michigan brown trout generally chose sites different than that of rainbow trout and salmon. He found that brown trout redds were located near banks and cover, while rainbow trout and salmon redds were generally located in more exposed locations. Salmon in the Platte Rivem'were also implicated in reductions of young of the year brown trout, however, this reduction was compensated for by better survival of the remaining brown trout. In addition growth and survival rates of older brown trout were not affected. (Taube 1975). This could possibly explain why there was a less dramatic difference in the number of legal sized fish.compared to the total population size at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station and why there did not seem to be a complete absence fish in any one size range. In addition to the Pacific salmon, there are also rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon in the Pere Marquette. The very low abundance of Atlantic salmon in the river would suggest minimal competitive problems for brown trout. 91 However, Steelhead are present in the river in large numbers. The juveniles remain in the river for up to two years attaining lengths up to ten inches before migrating lakeward. This could be part of the reason why the Pere Marquette brown trout grew so slowly in the first years of life but grew more rapidly when they reached age II. Juvenile salmonids have been shown to set up territories within a stream channel. The size of the territories is releated to physical and visual separation and food abundance (Kalleberg 1958). Fish which could not set up a territory were forced to migrate out or die (Chapman 1966). Northcote (1978) found that when food was scarce the frequency of aggression between salmonid species was high, territory size was large and nearly 90% ofthe fry emigrated from the stream channel. The similarity of the steelhead and brown trout niches suggests that there is a potential for substantial overlap»of utilized resources, with the less competitive species becoming less abundant. It may also be a reason why there are fewer young of the year brown trout present during subsequent sampling periods at the mouth of the Baldwin sampling station. However after age II the few remaing brown trout are exposed to a greatly reduced amount of interspecific competion when the juvenile rainbow trout leave the stream. With the reduced numbers of brown trout, intraspecific competion may be reduced resulting in accelerated growth observed after age II. All of these factors may be possible explainations of 92 the trends exhibited by the brown trout in the Pere Marquette River. However the extent of the influence of the various potential detrimental factors on the brown trout cannot be determined without further study directed specifically at the brown trout in much greater detail. SUMMARY The Pere Marquette River has long been the site of an important coldwater fishery. For well over one hundered years this river has provided angling enjoyment and food to salmonid anglers. While the species sought has changed over time from Michigan grayling to brook and brown trout and now anadromous trout and salmon, the Pere Marquette still maintains its importance as a coldwater fishery in Michigan. The anglers primarly fished during spring and fall when anadromous fish were spawning. The greatest effort was expended in the "flies only" section. Chinook salmon were most commonly harvested species of salmonid in the river. However, rainbow trout.was the most sought after species. Of primary interest to the anglers were the adult steelhead form of this species, but wide availability probably was partially resonsible for the popularity of rainbow trout..Anglers used a wide variety'of bait types while in quest of their desired species, generally flies were used in the "flies only" section but not in all cases. Worms, spawn, and flies were used extensively in unrestricted areas. Most of the anglers prefered to fish from shore or while wading as opposed to fishing from a boat or canoe. Michigan grayling have long gone extinct and the once 93 94 famous brown trout fishery has significantly'declined.in importance. Only 3.6% of anglers who annually'visit the Pere Marquette River prefered brown trout. The reasons for the demise of the brown trout fishery are unclear’at the present time, but many speculate that andromous trout and salmon have negatively impacted the resident brown trout population. Limited information on trout abundance in the region has indicated a rather precipitious decline in brown trout numbers during the last 10-15 years, but, the causes have not been scientifically'ascertained. While this study depicts the brown trout fishery as relatively unimportant today it should be noted that decline of this fishery was.probably'related.to brown trout abundance in the river. Had brown trout abundance remained high, perhaps its fishery would be of greater importance today. LIST OF REFERENCES Bald, F.C. 1961. Michigan in Four Centuries. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York. 528 pp. Bagenal, T. 1978. Methods for assesment of fish production in fresh waters. I.B.P. handbook number 3. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England. 365 pp. Carl, L.M. 1982. Natural reproduction of coho salmon and chinook salmon in some Michigan streams. N.A.J. Fish. Mgmt. 2(4):375-380. ' Catton, B. 1976. Michigan, a Bicentennial History. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc, New York, New York. 204 pp. Chapman, D.W. 1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid populations in streams. Am. Field Nat. 100: (913). 345-357. Clark, F.N. 1885. Report of operations as Northville and Alpena stations for the season of 1883-1884. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. Rep.of Commissioners for 1883: pp 975-988. Dunbar, W.F. 1980. Michigan, a History of the Wolverine State. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 833 pp. Goldie, M.S. 1982. Pere Marquette National scenic river management plan. U.S. Dept. Ag. For. Ser. 122pp. Gowing H. and G.R. Alexander. 1980. Population dynamics of trout in some streams of the northern lower peninsula of michigan. Mich. Dep. Nat. Resources, Fish. Res. Rep. 1840, 45pp. Kalleberg, H. 1958. Observations in a stream tank pf territoriality and competion in juvenile salmon and trout (Salmo salar and _S_. trutta L.). Inst. Freshw. Res. Drottnlngholm 39:55-98. Luton, (LR. 1985. The first introductions of brown trout, Salmg trutta, in the United States. Fisheries, 10(1) :10-13. MDNR 1967. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division planting records. Michigan DNR, Lansing, Michigan. 125 pp. 95 96 MDNR 1977. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division planting records. ‘Michigan.DNR, Lansing, Michigan. 120 pp. MDNR 1978. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division.planting records. ZMichigan DNR, Lansing, Michigan. 127 pp. MDNR 1979. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division.planting records. IMichigan DNR, Lansing, Michigan. 122 pp. MDNR 1980. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division.planting records. IMichigan DNR, Lansing, Michigan. 153 pp. MDNR 1981. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division planting records. iMichigan DNR, Lansing, Michigan. 173 pp. MDNR 1982. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division_planting records. IMichigan DNR, Lansing, Michigan. 179 pp. MDNR 1983. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division.planting records. IMichigan DNR, Lansing, Michigan. 184 pp. Michigan Fish Commission. 1881. Fourth report of the state commissioners and superintendent on state fisheries for 1879-1880. W.S. George and Co., State printers and binders. 52pp. Michigan Fish Commission. 1883. Fifth report of the state commissioners andsuperintendent on state fisheries for 1881-1882. W.S. George and Co., State printers and binders. 70pp. , Michigan Fish Commission. 1887. Seventh report of the state commissioners and superintendent on state fisheries for 1885-1886. Thorp and Godfrey, State printers and binders. 130pp. Michigan Fish Commission. 1897. Twelfth report of the state commissioners and superintendent on state fisheries for 1895-1896. Robert Smith Printing Company, State printers and binders. 99 pp. Michigan Fish Commission. 1899. Thirteen report of the state commissioners and superintendent on state fisheries for 1897-1898. Robert Smith Printing Company, State printers and binders. 76 pp. 97 Michigan Fish Commission. 1907. Sixteenth report of the state commissioners and superintendent on state fisheries for 1905-1906. wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Company, State printers and binders. 96 pp. Michigan Fish Commission. 1911. Nineteenth report of the state commissioners and superintendent on state fisheries for 1909-1910. wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Company, State printers and binders. 204 pp. Michigan Fish Commission. 1913. Twentieth report of the state commissioners and superintendent on state fisheries for 1911-1912. wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Company, State printers and binders. 205 pp. Michigan Fish Commission. 1915. Twenty-first report of the state commissioners and superintendent on state fisheries for 1913-1914. Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Company, State printers and binders. 215 pp. Nielsen L.A. and D.L. Johnson. 1983. Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. 468pp. Northcote, T.G. 1978. Migratory strategies and production in freshwater fish. In Ecology of Freshwater Fish Production, S.D. Gerking ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 520pp. Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 191: 382pp. Scott W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 184: 966pp. Smedley, ILH. 1935. Trout of Michigan. Private printer. 49pp. Taube, C.M. 1974. Transfer releases of coho salmon and trout into an upper part of platte river, and observations on salmonid spawning. Mich. Dep. Nat. Resources, Fish. Res. Rep. 1815, 28pp. . 1975. Abundance, growth, biomass, and interrelationship of trout and coho salmon in the platte river. Mich. Dep. Nat. Resources, Fish. Res. Rep. 1830, 82pp. Trout Unlimited. 1982. A trout anglers guide to the Pere Marquette River. Challenge Chapter, Clawson, Michigan. 20pp. APPENDIX A MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION March 8, 1985 T0: Files FROM: David P. Borgeson, Assistant Chief, Fisheries Division SUBJECT: Pere Marquette River Brown Trout There is great concern over the status of brown trout fishing in the Pere Marquette and enthusiasm for restoring it to former levels is high. Lovers of the river all have their own strong personal convictions on what needs to be done. It is not surprising that many of these convictions conflict, one with another. If we are going to make progress we now need to begin pulling together in areas that show the most promise. We have to find common grounds of agreement and go to work together. To start with, I have listed below a series of actions that the biologists think will cause brown trout levels to increase in the Pere Marquette. I have listed them in the order of most significant impact to least significant impact and I have explained briefly the logic and facts that support the ranking. ' (1) Blocking of all steelhead from the river. Young Steelhead are very abundant in-the Pere Marquette and are believed to be eating food and occupying space at the expense of brown trout. Steelhead spawning, which takes place after brown spawning, may disturb some brown spawning beds. A substantial increase, perhaps a doubling, of brown trout abundance (standing crop and sport catch) could be expected if we kept steelhead out of the river. Steelhead, however, are a fine trout in their own right and have their own supporters. as brown trout do. Many brown trout fishermen also enjoy steelhead fishing, which has improved dramatically since 1966 in the Pere Marquette. The Department of Natural Resources does not support action of eliminating steelhead from the Pere Marquette and realizes that few others would support such a move. But it is important for us all to realize that by refusing to do so we are turning our back on what is probably the biggest factor limiting brown trout abundance in the Pere Marquette. 98 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 99 Ceasing chemical treatment of lamprey - It has been pretty well established that insect hatches will improve if chemical lamprey treatments cease. Brown trout abundance can be expected to improve also. If the shift is towards the larger insect forms as expected, browns should be favored more than rainbows (young steelhead) because of their nocturnal habits and preference for larger food items. This shift should favor fly fishermen because it will restore some of the "hatches" they rely on for their Sport. Actual abundance increases of brown trout (and of trout overall) will probably be less than 25 percent, however, via this action. Sediment traps - Sediment traps can be expected to increase brown and rainbow trout abundance in certain stretches of the Pere Marquette. In those particularly troubled areas increases could be as high as 100 percent. But not all of the Pere Marquette is severely troubled by sand problems. And sediment traps are planned for only parts of the stream. Therefore, brown trout increases from this action will not be noticeable in much of the main river. Other traditional stream improvement measures - These have obvious limitations and are very expensive. Brown trout did not seem to respond favorably to the extensive and costly work done on the mainstream during the late 19708. Fishermen like these structures and some are important for streambank protection, but they are very much overrated for increasing trout stocks in sizeable rivers. Little chance for noticeable gains in trout abundance here. Fishing Regulations - These are always a useful tool but current regulations are believed to be quite adequate and desirable for protecting brown trout stocks. Little more can be accomplished. Good law enforcement is always important regardless of regulations and our officers will continue to do their best. Salmon control - Salmon runs are believed to favor trout abundance, particularly steelhead trout abundance, but probably browns also, for the following reasons: (a) Salmon carcasses are rich in nutrients that support the trout stream food chain. The high productivity of the Pere Marquette is believed to be in large measure due - to the salmon cycle.’ (b) Salmon eggs are eaten by brown trout just before trout spawning and the onset of winter. This is believed to give brown spawners an important boost of high energy food when they most need it. It also would provide a spurt of growth for younger browns and steelhead. 100 (c) Small salmon provide a food source for larger brown trout but this is probably offset by competition for food and space among salmon and young browns. (d) Adult salmon do not cause significant damage to brown. trout by eating them or biting them although they will chase them from their redds. And adult salmon do not disrupt brown trout spawning which comes later. Overall, biologists would expect trout abundance to decline somewhat if salmon were blocked from the Pere Marquette. A partial salmon block, because it would reduce enrichment and the amount of salmon eggs available as trout food without reducing competition by young salmon, would be worse than no block at all. And salmon sport fishing would suffer needlessly. (7) Brown trout stocking - The mainstream is full of trout even though most are rainbows. Adding hatchery brown trout to such a situation can be expected to accomplish little, except to lower the quality of fishing. Our goal on the prime water of the upper Pere Marquette should be wild, self-sustaining brown trout. A fishery supported even in part by hatchery fish detracts from the character and quality we want. The lower river and the Big South Branch is being stocked now. Perhaps parts of the Little South should be as well. But stocking shows no real promise for the main river. In summary, this is about how we biologists see the situation and it is out of this kind of analysis we have recommended starting work on items (2) and (3). We agree on them and they rank near the top in expected results. DPB:daf CC: Region II District 6 Don RG’DOldB ‘ A W Steve Acker Doug Carter Dick Bess Ben Myler Jim Wood Andy Pelt David lallberg Jim Handley Henry Desterville Harvey'Silver Don DeFouw Owen Gasler John Green Keith Croty APPENDIX B 1()l .0. Ac. .0. Ac. .0. Ac. Ac. .o. .o. .ov o o o o o o o o o o menus umssce issm.ms .o. .o. .o. Aves.~. .vov. Love. ism. imam. .mmm.~. oss.oe o o o mm~.e amm o- son m~a.e oav.e assoc nosmc< powwow use >oz Duo now use Hon can an: use =\o snaps mMDOZ zmzmmzmHm UZHmmHmIZDz 039 .csqfinuflz .um>flm couscous: mums .mommsusmuma as was muouuo composes .mmma Lonesome canons» Hsud< scum a :oHuoow now muse: cosmonmfimlcoz .H< wanna 1132 Lam. .o. lo. Lem. 1mm. .H. .o. .o. .0. .H. mm o o em on m o o N a means uwsmce .omms .o. Ac. lows. ides. .0. lo. .0. .o. .o. mom o o ems am pm o o m am muse: umsmc< .mas Lo. .9. .0. .SH. .o. .o. .o. .o. .m. .Neno.o. as o o o m o o o o a memo.o zooms sauce Lee .0. Ac. Lo. .01 .Ao. .o. .o. .o. .o. .mmmo.o. m o o o o o o o o m Noao.o ozone czoum Ame .os Lo. .o. Am. .0. .o. .o. .o. .o. .mpoo.o. H o o o H o o o o o mmoo.o ozone spaces; Ema. Ace .oe Lo. Ase. .o. .0. .o. .o. .n. .meoo.o. NH o o o m o o o o a mano.o seesaw soccezo powwow own >02 boo mam one Han can an: ua< :\o Hobos mmeowam 9525 HRS Dunks—Hag .mowoficcumm cw mum mucous omega 05. A8353: £05m 335.8: some .33 amniocen— zooobb 35¢ soon a 5308 “On mucous“. upon «magnum .m< mason. 1(33 .mem.~. ism. Lemme Amom.e. .mo~.~. lass. lemme .omm. .mmm. . .mee.~. ems.os om 5mm eem.m omc.m see mmm New mam smm.e manna assoce .vse.me. ices. loom. Avqe.~. .Hmm.oss Ammo. .mee.e. .meo.~. ioeo.es .cem.e. mom.~e om oo~.a mee.ae ses.¢e sea -o.a men.H ewe.~ mmm.o muss: uwsmce .omm.~. .HH. .mm. ic-.~. imme.H. ism. ism. .ma. .amm. imam. .smeo.c. ems.» e was oaa.m mmm.a mm be me mmm mmm emme.o guano Hobos Lee. go. .o. Lo. lo. .o. Ace .o. .o. .eav .mcoo.o.. e. o o o o o o o o e. 88... 850 .oom.~. Ase. .mm. .o-.~. .mee.a. Ame. ace .o. .o. .o. .meoo.o. som.m e on mem.m Nem.e on o o o o ~mee.c seesaw xooceeo Am. .0. Lo. Ac. .ov .o. .o. .0. .o. .m. .Hooo.o. N o o o o o o o o ~ oooo.o possum oeoo .me. Lo. .o. lo. Aos Lo. .o. .o. lo. .mev .mooo.o. o o o o o o o o o e sooc.o ozone eooum lame. .o. lo. lo. less Ame. .NN. .om. Lees. .mm. Aeeoo.o. amm o o e sq m e so mm mm cmoc.o ozone esoum .oems Lo. is». .Nms lo. Ame. lee. Ame. .mmm. .aom. .mmoo.o. see c cos me o on a m one mow eeeo.o ozone gossame commmm own >oz poo now use esp can an: use eeo Hence mmeowam mmeoaeo meoem amaezeamm .mmmmnucwusm as who muouum unaccoum 039 .caoeeoez .nm>ee showcase: muse .Noms nmnswuwo espouse “some zone a :oanowm sou awesome spasm cosmeeumm .me wanna .104 .mNa.N. Lem. .NNN. Aeom.H. .NON.N. ANNNV .mmm. loam. .mmN. .eHN.N. oom.os oN Nam Nae.m NNo.N eNN see New omm NON.H manna umsmee .oNN.NN. .oNN. loom. leee.N. ANNm.oH. .Nme. .mee.e. .mNo.N. .omo.e. .oom.v. men.ee as OON.N mom.me Hem.vs Ham NNo.N eeN.N mNH.N Hem.» peso: umsmce .omm.N. .HH. .Nm. AONN.N. .NmH.N. .NN. ANN. .Nm. .NNN. .NNN. .Nmmo.o. mNe.e a one omm.m oom.a mm NH ms NNN men meme.o guano sauce led. .01 .o. .o. .o. lo. .o. .o. Ac. ace. .mooo.o. N o o o o o o o o N Hooo.o cacao loom.N. Ase. .mN. .ONN.N. .mee.e. Ame. lo. .0. .o. .N. .mseo.o. Nem.m e we mom.m ONm.N on o o o a weeN.o possum xooceeo Ame lo. .0. lo. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .m. .Hooo.o. N o o o o o o o o N oooo.o seesaw oeoo .NH. .0. .o. is. .o. lo. lo. .o. .o. .Ne. .mooo.o. e o o o a o o o c e Nooo.o ozone goose isms. .o. is. .o. lam. ins. .NN. .om. .HeH. .mm. .eeoo.c. veN o o o as m m as me an emoo.o ozone czoum lovms ice .mNe .NN. AN. ANN. lee. ANN. .NmN. ANON. .Neoo.o. New o cos mN N oN m m NNN mmN meec.° ozone goneeme commmm owe >oz boo saw one Han can Ne: nae =\o Hausa moaooam mmzuafiuqfiafizvofifiszamm near .camseuNz .um>ee subpoena: mums .Nmme uwnemomo cocoons senae son“ a :oeuowm new awesome “moon consensus .momwnucwumm as one muouuw unaccoum .v< wanna 1(35 issue .o. lo. Ame. .eN. .Neu. is. .qou. .o. .N. NNu o o Nu NH me o Ne o e msuua umusce “mes. .01 so. some. AoNNs Ammo. .os .NoH. .o. so. new o 0 mm. om mas o as o o musoe umusce .ONu. .0. ice .o. .o. .o. is. .oNu. is. .u. .NNsN.o. uNu o o o o o o oNu c u msoN.o eoumo sauce SN: 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. SN: 8. 8. 5.5.8 as o o o o o o as o o smou.o usoue esoum SN: 8. 8. 8. S. 8. 8. SN: 8. a .336. . um o o o o o o oo o u mmcu.o usoue goscume commmm ows >02 one saw one use can see use see Hausa wmuowsm mega p.48 BHRZHBWN .mwmwcucwusm as one mucuum chansons 039. .cmmenufiz .uo>Hm mandamus: mums .NmmH umbewowo cosouzu Heum< Eouu 4 coauowm HON monuumo noon nonmeaumm. .n< oHnsa 1136 .NNN.H. Nu. .m. .eNu. .sNu. 1mm. in. .HmN. .mmN.u. .eNN.u. omN.N m s ueu NNN as ou NNu NNN mNN msuus uuusce .mom.v. .o. .o. .oom. .OVN. .Nme. is. .mom. .NsN.N. .Nme.n. uuv.s cu mu ems oem.u eNN mu eon mes.u «Nu.N muse: uuusce .mmm. is. .N. .o. lo. lmN. is. .o. lemN. .NNH. .Nsmo.o. esN o s o o Nu o o cue Nuu «mmo.c euumu sauce .mN. lo. .0. .o. is. imNs lo. so. so. so. .uqoo.o. Nu o o o O NH o o o c muoo.o cusses eoocueu AmmN. Ass .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. lo. .NNN. .o. Amoco.o. ass 0 o o o o o o cue o NNuo.o coeumm ozou .NNN. .o. .N. so. so. .0. Lo. so. .o. .NsN. .Homo.c. «Nu o s o o o o o o euu mmuo.o usoua zoneuue commas uus >02 uuo sum one use can as: use e\o sauce muuuusm mum—.25 gm BHEZHBMM 03a .coqficow: .um>Hm couscous: mums .mwmonucousa ca mus muouum caduceus .NNS uuaauus 8893 Suse sous e 838w use 8:88 38... Business .2 Same 107 a. s. a. s. a. a. a. a. a. . a. . o o o o o o o o o o usuua uuusce .eNv.N. is. is. is. is. lo. is. .Nus. .va.N. .o. oss.N c o o o o o owe omm.u oes muse: uuusce eouuum uus >02 uuo sum use use can us: use eeo Hausa mega Ewan OPENZHE .mmwmficmumm 5 our. muouum page 03s. .5382 .uufie Buussumz uuus .83 uueaous essoufi Suse auuu e 8308 uou 8:88 uuus couga— .Ne seams. 1138 .mmu.u. is. .m. isms. .Nmu. .NNH. .N. .mom. .mmN.u. .eNN.u. sov.N N u emu sen muu 0H eNN NNN see usuue uuusce .mum.e. .01 .0. Amen. imuN. .NNm. .0. .mum. .NsN.N. .Nme.ms sus.0 us as use 0N0.u use Nu NNN muu.u 0NN.N uusoe uuuuee ANNN. .0. is. .0. so. .mN. .0. Ache. .meN. .Nsus Ammuo.o. sum 0 0 o o Nu N oNu ouu suu NNmo.o euuuu uuuos .NHL .0. lo. 20. .0. .NH. 20. .o. .0. .0. lemoo.0. NH 0 o o 0 NH 0 0 o o Neoc.o coeuum eoocueu .mwN. .o. .0. so. see .0. Les .0. .mmN. .0. LVNeo.o. one 0 o o o o o 0 see 0 emu0.0 cusses 0200 .oNN. .0. .o. .0. .0. 20s .0. .oNN. .0. .0. somNo.o. 00 o 0 0 o o o 00 0 o uuo0.o usoua =30us .ouN. 20. AN. 20. lo. .0. .0. .oNN. .0. .NNH. .uem0.0. use 0 u 0 o 0 o 00 0 sue meNo.o uuoue soseuus couuum uus >02 uuo sum use use :20 2e: use =\o Hausa uuuuusm mm=UHue uuuussuuz uuus .Nusu uuusuuus espoueu uuuse suuu e souuuuu uou uueuuuu ueuou uuuueeuum .ue uusus 1139 AmON. iou imNe Auus leNs umuus Aeue ANN. lum. umm. NuN o uN Nu mN um mu NN om uN usuus uuusce isms. 201 uusus AONus issue uNum. immus uust somms AmON. eNm.u o muu om ouu eeu emu euN ouN Nmu uusoe uuuuce AmNN. 20. lo. so. Auu. LNNN. ANus uNm. issue ANus uusNN.o. NmN o o o e um uu me mOu eN emuu.o euuuo uuuos LNNNL 10. Ace 101 Ace ANNNV use so. is. .o. usuuu.o. 0m 0 o o 0 mm o o o o moeo.o coeuum eoocueo Ammo use use ice as. ice Ass lame use use uuee0.ou Na 0 o o o 0 cu mm o e Nemo.o usous czuus issue lo. use .01 iuus use .N. nous ANNu. uuus someu.o. meu o o o u o u ou mou 0N «mou.o usuus auscuee commwm coo >oz boo sum os< uso .csn 2m: um< m\u umsoe mmuoodw mm:UBem assesses: mums .mmmosucwumm cu mum muouuo Chengdum .Nusu susewuus_eusoueu uuuse sous u couuuuu uou uueuuuu uuou uuuusuuum .me uusue 110 .muN. .mm. .eeN. .NNu. .eeN. .00e. .ee. .ueu. .ueN. .NeN. uue.u eu emu eeu 00v emu 00 0eu eNN Nee usuua uuumee .eee.u. .0Nu. .Nue. .0ee. .NNe. .umm. .e0u. .e0N. .N0m. .000. Nm0.m 00 0NN mNm 0uN.u NuN Nuu eeN 0Ne 0e0.u uusoe uuusse .eme. .0. .0. .0. .eeN. .0. .0e. .0e. .00. .mNN. .eN00.0. Nee 0 0 0 eeu 0 NN mu mm mmu eeN0.0 euuuo uuuoe .meN. .0. .0. .0. .meN. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .Nee0.0. eeu 0 0 0 eeu 0 0 0 0 0 eee0.0 assume xoocueu .00N. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .Nu. .NN. .0. .NON. .mN00.0. NNu 0 0 0 0 0 uu mu 0 e0 muN0.0 usous ezoue .euu. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0e. .0u. .ee. .Ne. .NuN0.0. euu 0 0 0 0 0 mu 0 mm em e0N0.0 usuue soneuus couuum uus >02 uuo sum use use :00 >0: use eeo uuuue uuuuusm. wmmgfiu macaw HERZHE 6.805:qu ca sum 02. .838? .uu>ue uuuuusuez uuus .Neeu uuauuuuo 00:85 uuuse suuu u 8380 uou uueuuuu 806 800508 0:. uuuuu. wHOHHO UHMEfim .o. .o. .o. . .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 usuuu. uuuuee l . .NON.u. .0. .0. .0. .0Ne. .Neu. .00u. .0em. .eeN. .eee. 00m.N 0 0 0 see emu uuu meu 00m NNe muse: uuusce 088.. uus >02 uuo sue use use. :00 202 use Eu uuuoa wages seus omeezuemm .mwmmnucmumm as one muouum oumocmum 055. .comanoez um>em sausages: mums .mmmu nonsmowo cmsouzu ufius< scum o :oHuoom new monouoo News poumsaumm_ .HH< ounce 1112 .000. .mm. .00N. .eNu. .00N. .u0m. .Ne. .e0u. .meN. .00N. 0N0.N 0u NuN mmu use NuN Nm emu 0mN 000 usuue uuusce .u00.u. .0Nu. .000. .0m0. .N00. .000. .meu. .mme. .Nu0. .Nme. 0N0.N 00 mee mu0 000.u uee 0mN N00 0e0 eee.u muse: uuumce .000. .0. .0. .0. .00N. .NNN. .Ne. .00. .0eu. .mNN. .0uN0.0. 000 0 0 0 00N 0m me N0 0eu seu «000.0 20000 uuuoe .000. .0. .0. .0. .00N. .NNN. .0. .0. .0. .0. .00m0.0. NmN 0 0 0 00u 0m 0 0 0 0 eme0.0 eoeuum xoocueo .NuN. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0u. .u0. .0. .00N. .mu00.0. 00u 0 0 0 0 0 uN 00 0 N0u ueN0.0 uuous czoum .muN. .0. .0. .0. .0u. .0. .00. .eN. .00u. .ee. .NN00.0. e0N 0 0 0 e 0 NN 0u oeu 00 0000.0 usoue zoncuus commwm coo >02 DUO mom mse use can he: um< :\U umuoa moflowmm @595 A<§ amber—Hemm— nsdp .cmmucoez .uw>em .momozucmumm cm was muouuw Unsuccem uuuussuuz uuus .Neeu uuueuuus 20:85 uuuse souu u couuuuu uou uueuuuu uuuou uuumfiuum NE 030... 2113 .00. .0. .0. .0. .00. .0. .0. .mu. .u. .u. um 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 u 0 usuuu. uuuuce .0N0. .0. .0. .0. .000. .0. .0. SN: .0. .0. 00N 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 u NN muse: uuusce .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. 008.0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Nu0.0 euuuu uuuos. .N. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .N. u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0000.0 0:80 0380 .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .meu0.0. N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0000.0 “58... 300500 Cowmmm coo >02 000 now 05¢ Han can >0: um< m\0 Hosea mmflommm was HEB DMHREHBmm 039 .cmmwfioez .uw>0m wuumqumz mums . .momwcucmumm :0 sum muouum thousanm .mmmu uwbawooo :msounu Heume sous m 200000m How succumb upon poumeeuwm .mu< mflnme 1114 .N00. .0. .0. .0. .0uu. .u0. .u. .Nuu. .0N. .00N. 000 0 0 0 00u 00 0 u0u 00u 000 usuua uuumee .u00. .0. .0. .0. .000. .umu. .0. .m0u. .00u. .000. 000.N 0 0 0 0N0 00N Nu N0N 000 000.u muse: uuusce .00. .0. .0. .0. .0. .u0. .u. .0. .0N. .0. .00u0.0. 00 0 0 0 0 mu u 0 Nu 0 uuu0.0 euuuu uuuoe .0N. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .u. .0. .0N. .0. .0000.0. 0u 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0000.0 usoua czoue .m0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .u0. .0. .0. .Nu. .0. .0Nu0.0. 0N 0 0 0, 0 mu 0 0 0 0 0000.0 usoue sousuue powwow coo >02 000 new woe use and mm: us< :\0 00009 mmflowmm mm: 530 MED. .m Cass—Hag Ntfiy .comenoez .uw>0m .wmmmcucmumm c0 mum muouuw shamansw muuosqumz mums .mmmu Homewooo smoounu Huus< soum m c00uoom How monoumo muocm owumsflumm .0u< 00200 1115 .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 usuue uuumce .000.u. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .Nm0. .00u.u. 0m0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000.u 00u.N muse: uuusee Cowmwm coo >02 000 com mo< How can >02 um< =\U umuoe mm. 26 mmHm QMHZZHBmm 039 .comflzoez .um>0m mubosqumz mums .mwmwsucwumm :0 mum muouuw customam .Nwmu uwnswooo cmsounu uuus< EOum m newuowm How monoumo uoflm owumEeumm .m0< wands 1.16 .u00. .0. .0. .0. .m0u. .u0. .u. .0uu. .0N. .00N. m00.u 0 0 0 mNN 00 0 00u m0u N00 usuua uuusee .m00. .0. .0. .0. .000. .umu. .0. .ueu. .00u. .000. NuN.0 0 0 0 000 0NN Nu N00 u00 N00.u uusoe uuusce .u0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .u0. .u. .0. .0N. .0. .N0u0.0. 00 0 0 0 0 mu u 0 Nu 0 Nuu0.0 euuuu uuuos .0N. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .u. .0. .0N. .N. .8000. uu 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 u 0000.0 uuoue :30u0 .00. .0. .0. .0. .0. .u0. .0. .0. .Nu. .0. .uuu0.0. mN 0 0 0 0 mu 0 0 0 N 0000.0 usoue goueuue cowoww owe >02 000 com 0034 0:0. :50. be: 54 EU 030.0. 8000.5 Wedgfiu 5.509 Dunks—Hem. 030. £03200: £0.02 .momwficmumm :0 one. 3950 00023.0 uuuuuusuuz uuus .N00u uuneuuuo emsoufi uuuse souu m 0000000 uou 0020000 :33 00005000.. .02 03.0.0 1117 .mmm.m. .om. .mmm. .m0m.0. .omm.~. .mom. .000. .omm. .mmm.0. .0m>.0. 00m.00 mm .000 mom.v 0N0.0 0N0 moo woo.0 000.0 m00.m mm0ua uo0oce .mm0.00. .000. .mo0.0. .000.>. .00m.o0. .0m0.0. .0m0.0. .n0~.0. .owo.m. .oon.m. 0om.m0 om0 000.~ 000.0m ~00.m0 0m~.~ mom.0 m00.m och.v O0m.~0 muse: uo0mc< .oom.m. .00. .mm. .omm.m. .m00.0. .mmm. .00. .0om. .0mv. .mmm. .onvo.o. 0mm.0 0 ~N0 omm.m 000.0 000 00 0mm omm mvo mm00.o :UumU 00009 .00. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .00. .mooo.o. n o o o o o o o o 0 0oooe. uwsuo .0mm.m. .00. .mm. .omm.m. .000.0. .mNN. .o. .o. .o. .o. .mmvo.o. mss.m 0 00 mom.m 000.0 00 o o o o memo.o :oe0mm xoo:0:U .00N. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .mwm. .m. .0voo.o. N00 0 o o o o o o 000 N 00oo.o :oE0mm 0:00 .00. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .m0. .mooo.o. 0 o o o o o o o o 0 0ooo.o usoue xooum .000. .o. .o. .o. .00. .00. .mm. .m00. .m00. .O0m. .mmoo.o. 000 o o o 00 m cm N00 00 000 vnoo.o usoue csoum .mmv. .o. .00. .mm. .00. .m0. .00. .0m0. .000. .mmm. .0moo.o. O00.0 o 000 mm 0 mm um m0 000 000 mh0o.o usOuB 30::0mm :ommsm own >02 000 new ms< 0cm :sn >0: use :\0 0muoe wm0oomm mZOHBUQw Add mom mmmUE0m 0000:0002 mums .mmmmzucoumm :0 mum muouum pummcmum .0000 uonewooo :msoucu 00um< sou“ m:00uoww 00m uOm monoumo mo mumsesm .h0< 000:8 118 .0N.0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .00.u. .0. .00.N. .0. .0. S0 0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0u.u 0 0 0000086 .0N.0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0m.N. .0. .0. .0. .0. 00.0 o o o o 00.0 o o o o x00>w0umsu .mN.0. .0. .0. .0. .00.0. .0. .00.0. .0. .0. .0. -.o o o o m0.o o oo.0 o o o wmou .m0.o. .o. .o. .o. .mm.0. .om.m. .om.~. Avm.m. .m0.0. .o. om.o o o o mm.0 00.0 oo.m 00.0 mm.o o :soz0mu .mN.0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .00.0. -.o o o o o o o o o mm.o nocmum .N0.0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .00.0. .0. .0N.0. .0. .00.0. 00.0 o o o o mm.o o mm.~ o hm.o :w0uuom .00.o. .o. .o. .o. .mm.o. 00m.m. .o. .o. .Nm.m. .o. mm.o o o o N0.o 0m.m o o mm.0 o 00m .NN.0. .0. .0. .00.0. .00.0. .m0.0. .0. .0. .mN.0. .00.0. 00.0 o o 00.0 00.m 00.m o o 00.0 mw.~ munmm .mm.o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .m0.0. .mm.~. .mm.o. 0m.o o o o o o o 00.0 00.~ mm.o :0m000e 200000 000 >02 0.8 sum one use 50 00: use 00.5.00 mUZMQHmmm so 092200 0m mmmuuze so.mueazmumms 000055.80 :0 mum muoHum 0.800.030 03.0. 2:000:00: .N./0m 30000.00: wuwm .Nmm0 nonemowo 0.0.0005 00290 0.005 mmpHm 000 new 3. 00:00.0..wmu mo .3550 .00. 00000:: .00: 0000.0. 119 .00.0. .0. 00. .00.0. .0. .00.0. .0. .0. .0. .00.0. 00.0 0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 0 0 00.0 0000000 .00.0. .0. .0. .0. .00.0. .00.0. .0. .0. .0. .00.0. 00.0 0 0 0 00.0 00.0 0 0 0 00.0 0030000 .00.0. .0. .00.0. .00.0. .00.~. 000.0. .0. 000.0. 000.0. 000.0. 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 .00.0. .0. .0. .00.0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .00.0. 00.0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 00.0 ”00000 000.0. .0. .0. .0. .00.0. .00.0. 000.0. .0. .00.0. .00.0. 00.0 0 0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00000 .00.0. 00. .0. 00. 00. .0. .00.0. .0. .0. .0. 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 000000000 000.0. .00 .0. 000 .00.0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. 00.0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 00003000 .00.0. 000 .0. 000.0. 000.0. 000.0. .0. .00.0. .0. 000.0. 00.0 0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0000000 .00.0. A0. .0. .00.0. .0. 00. 00. .0. .0. .0. 00.0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 000.0. A0. .0. .00 .0. .0. .0. A0. .0. .00.0. 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.0 0200000 000000 000 >02 000 000 0:0 000 000 00: 000 000000 . AN moan. 800500080 004 $0003. 120 .mv.o. Ac. Ac. Amm.o. Amm.o. Ac. .mm.mv Ac. Amm.av Aom.o. ~5.o o o ¢¢.o mo.o o oo.e o mm.o nm.o mmzmcmq A¢H.ov Ac. Ac. .0. Ac. Amh.H. Ac. Ac. on .ov no.o o o o o mm.o o o c o ummmmq Avm.o. on .mq.oa. Aam.fl. Avo.m. .o. Aoo.~. Avm.~. .ov Amm.o. mH.m o Hm.ha mm.H >o.m o oo.m mH.H o mm.o mxmq Aom.av Aom.mm. .mm.HHv Aah.mv Amo.m. .mm.m. .mm.m. Anm.m. Avm.n. A¢~.v. mo.¢a oo.o~ mH.H~ mm.¢ mm.m mm.» oo.>~ mm.>H ~m.mm mm.aa unmx Amo.Hv Aom.mmv on AH5.~. A¢o.mv Aom.mv AH¢.m. .mm.m. .mo.a. Amm.a. mm.m oo.o~ o mm.¢ no.m mn.a oo.m mm.~ mm.o mm.~ ooumsmfimx .mo.H. Ac. Ac. Avv.~. Amv.~. A¢m.>v Ac. on Ao. Amm.av mm.m o o Hm.m hm.e om.na o o o mm.m :omxumn .m«.o. Ac. Aam.mv Avm.av .mm.a. Ac. Amm.a. on .ov .mm.o. cm.o o mm.H mm.o ¢N.H o oo.H o o mm.o mHHmnmmH Aom.o. Ac. Ao. Ac. gov Ac. Ac. A¢m.~v gov Anm.ov ¢H.o o o o o o o mH.H o m~.o mflcoH Amm.Hv .om.mmv Amm.hv Amv.m. .mo.m. Ao~.v. Aom.mv Aoo.¢v Amm.m. Amm.a. om.m oo.om mm.> ov.n om.m om.m oo.~ mm.m pm.HH mm.~ emnmcH Am~.ov Ac. on Ac. gov on on .ov Amm.~v .nm.cv -.o o o o o o o o mo.a mm.o mfimcmfiafim :ommmm owe >02 uoo mam mz< Han can mm: gm¢ muasou .Am mama. noscflucoo ma¢_manma 121 Aoa.a. Ac. .~¢.o. Amm.o. Avm.a. .om.~. .oo.m. .mm.o. Amm.¢. .m¢.~. He.¢ o n~.m ¢¢.o om.~ a>.H co.» o~.HH Hm.m po.m comoxmsz Amm.o. Ac. Ac. .v~.H. Ame.o. .o. .ov Avm.~. .ov .mm.o. Hm.o o o mm.o Hm.o o o mH.H o mm.o Eamoucoz Amm.o. Ac. Anv.m. Ac. Ac. on Amm.fl. Ac. Amm.~. Amm.H. va.o o hn.m o o o oo.H o m¢.~ oh.H mouse: AOH.H. Ac. Amm.n. .mn.mv Amm.~. Adm.m. Ac. Ac. Amm.~. .mm.a. H¢.¢ o mm.“ hh.m 05.5 hm.m o o mq.~ mv.a namficflz Amm.ov Ao. .ov Amm.ov Amm.o. .om.mv .mm.H. .mm.¢. .ov Awm.o. vm.o o o ¢¢.o ~m.o ah.a oo.H H>.¢ o mm.o mumoomz .m¢.o. Ao. on .o. Amo.o. Aom.~. Amm.m. .o. .mm.a. .nm.o. mo.o o o o Hm.o ms.a oc.q o mm.o m~.o ccmmz Ao~.o. on Ao. .mm.o. on Ao. Amm.a. Ac. Ac. Ac. vH.o o o «v.0 o o oo.H o o o mpumswumz Aoo.o. Anm.mav Ao. AH>.~. Amm.ov Anm.¢. on Ac. .ov .nm.ov mm.H oo.oa o mm.¢ ~m.o mm.o o o o m~.o mmumflcmz Amh.o. Ac. Ac. ,0. Amm.av Amo.mv Aom.~. Aca.m. Amm.~. Amm.a. «o.m o o o vN.H mo.m oo.m mm.m mo.H ov.m neoomz Ao¢.o. .mm.ma. Ac. on Amo.o. on A0. A0. go. Amm.av ~>.o oo.oH o o Hm.o o o o o >~.~ coummcfl>aq commmm own >oz poo mmm mz< Han can an: Ham mucsoo ..¢ mama. nwscflugoo mH< mHnme 122 Amm.o. .o. on Ac. Amm.a. Ac. .0. .o. .mo.a. .om.ov Hm.o o o o v~.H o o o mm.o 5m.o mmmmmzmflnm A¢H.o. Ao. go, Ao. .o. Ac. .mm.a. Ac. Ac. on 5o.o o o o o o oo.a o o o omflflcmm Amm.o. on Ao. Avq.o. Ac. Ac. .9. Ac. Ac. .om.o. -.o o o v¢.o o o o o o 5m.o mango .um A5o.o. .o. on .o. Awm.H. Amo.mv Aom.~. Avm.~. Am~.m. .wm.o. mm.H o o o om.~ mo.~ oo.~ mH.H Hm.m mm.o ‘3maammm Amm.o. .o. A5v.mv .¢~.H. .mo.o. Am5.a. Aom.~. Amm.m. Amm.m. Aem.~. ~m.~ o 55.m mm.o Hm.o mm.o oo.~ 00.5 om.v oa.m mzmegu Awm.o. on Ac. Adm.H. A5o.H. Aom.mv on .o. gov Amm.o. Ho.a o o mm.a mm.o o¢.v o o o mm.o mHomomo Ava.o. on .o. .mm.o. Ac. on on .o. Ac. go. 5o.o o o ¢¢.o o o o o o o susmmo A¢H.o. .ov Ac. Ac. Ac. Ac. .ov Ao. Amm.a. on 5o.o o o o o o o o mm.o o mammoo Amm.o. A5m.mflv Adm.mv A¢¢.m. .vm.a. Am5.av Aom.¢. Amm.m. Amm.~. .ma.~v 5¢.m oo.oa ~m.a Hm.m om.~ mm.o oo.m mo.5 mo.H m~.v candamu .m~.o. .5a.wH. Ac. on Amo.o. go. Amm.a. Ac. .o. A5m.o. m~.o oo.oa o o Hm.o o oo.H o o m~.o ommmxmz :ommmm own >02 poo mmm os< Hub can my: mac mucsoo .Am mmmav owscaugoo mangHnma 123 .HH.NV on Amm.m. .mm.o. A-.e. Amo.m. .oo.mv .mm.m. Amm.mv .mm.m. vm.ma o vm.aa mc.mm mm.5H 5m.m oo.o~ mH.Hm 5m.HH mH.mH mumumumouuso Aqm.o. on on .vm.a. .m5.a. Aom.mv Ac. .9. on Aom.o. Ho.H o o mm.o mq.~ m5.H o c o 5m.o ouomxmz .mo.a. on Aam.mv .vm.m. A5~.~. Ac. Aoa.m. .oo.q. Amm.e. Ama.~. 5m.¢ o mm.H ~m.v mm.v o oo.5 mm.m Ho.o m~.v wnamz .m5.o. on .Hm.m. AV5.H. Amm.H. .om.m. on on on Amo.mv mm.a o mm.H m5.H mm.H 55.H o o o 5m.m smamunmmz .m¢.ov on Ac“ A¢N.Hv Amm.o. Amo.mv on .¢m.m. .mo.a. A5m.o. ~5.o o o mm.o ~m.o mo.~ o mH.H mm.o mm.o :musm am> commmm own >02 uoo mwm ma< Ham can 5m: and 5ucsoo .Am mama. cascaugoo mag manna 124 .55.o. .o. .o. Ao. Amm.o. on Ac. .o. .o. .o. mo.o o o o 5m.o o o o o o mumfio Am5.o. Ao. on Ac. Ac. gov Ac. on .o. .55.5. 55.o o o o o o o o o m5.o mzmgm5nu .m5.ov .ov .o. .05 .o. A55.5. gov A55.m. .o. on mH.o o o o o 55.5 o 55.5 o o :mmsonmnu .m5.o. on Ac. .0. .ov A55.m. .ov Ac. Ac. Ac. 55.o o o o o «5.5 o o o o xca>mfiumzu .m5.ov go. on Ao. Aom.o. Ao. .ov on .o. Ac. 55.o o o o mm.o o o o o o ammo Aom.o. gov on on .55.Hv .o. Awo.v. .Hm.m. Ac. A0. 55.0 o o o mm.5 o om.5 55.5 o o asonfimo A55.ov Ac. .ov Ac. on Ac. on .ov .o. A55.o. mo.o o o o o o o o o o¢.o magnum Ao¢.o. Ac. on Ao. Aom.o. .55.5V on Ac. Amm.mv .o. m¢.o o o o no.0 55.5 o c 55.5 o 5mm .55.ov Ac. .0. .55.ov Amo.5v A5m.mv Ac. Ac. Amc.vv A5o.5v 55.5 o o ov.o 55.5 55.5 o o 5m.m 55.5 555mm Amm.ov Ac. Ac. on on on Ac. on .mo.wv A55.o. om.o o o o o o o o 5m.m o¢.o cmmwfifla :ommmm own >oz woo mmm mam Ham can 55: um< aucsou muzmaHmmm 50.592500 5m mmmqwzm mo mwzyzmummm .mmmmficmflwm 9.5 93 muouum gm 039 .5802on 595m mung wumm .mmma umflemoma 29.6.2» :52: 595 m noduowm How 2; wocmnwmmu mo wagon ha wumamg .345 magma 125 .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. 55.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55.5 55505 .55.5. .55.55. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. 55.5 55.55 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.55 55.5 555555 .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. .5. 55.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55.5 5 555555555 .55.5. .5. .5. .55.5. .5. .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. 55.5 5 5 55.5 5 55.5 5 5 5 55.5 5055555 .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. 55.5 5 5 5 55.5 55.5 5 5 5 55.5 5535550 .55.5. .5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. 55.5 5 55.55 55.5 55.5 55.5 5 55.5 55.5 55.5 5555555 .55.5. .5. .5. .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. 55.5 5 5 .55.5 5 5 5 5 5 55.5 555555 .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. .55.5. .5. .55.5. .55.5. 55.5 5 5 5 5 55.5 55.5 5 55.5 55.5 50555 .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. 55.5 5 5 5 55.5 5 5 5 5 5 55053550 .55.5. .5. .5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. 55.5 5 5 55.5 55.5 55.5 5 5 5 55.5 5055550 505555 550 >02 550 555 555 555 555 55: 555 555500 ..5 5555. 555555505 555 55555 126 .055. .5. .5. .55.5. .5. .5. .55.5. .5. .5. .5. 05.0 0 0 00.0 0 0 00.5 0 0 0 55555095: .00.0. .00.00. .0. 055.0. .05.0. .0. .0. .0. .0. .55.0. 00.0 50.05 0 00.0 00.0 0 0 0 0 00.0 5555505: .55.0. .0. .0. .0. .0m.5. .00.0. .00.0. .50.5. .00.0. .05.5. 05.5 0 0 0 50.5 55.0 05.0 50.5 00.0 00.0 05005: .005. .0005. .5. .5. .505. .5. .5. .5. .0. .55.5. 05.0 50.05 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 55.0 coummca>aq .005. .5. .5. .55.5. .55.5. .5. .55.5. .0. .5. .55.5. 00.0 0 0 00.0 00.0 0 00.5 0 0 55.0 5535555 .55.5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .55.5. .5. .0. .0. .5. 50.0 0 0 0 0 50.5 0 0 0 0 555055 .00.5. .0. .50.05. .50.5. .00.0. .0. .0. .50.0. .0. .NH.5. 00.0 0 00.05 50.5 05.5 0 0 05.5 0 55.0 5x55 .50.0. .05.00. .05.55. .05.0. .05.m. .50.0. .05.05. .05.0. .50.5. .00.0. 05.05 50.50 50.55 50.0 00.5 50.5 55.00 00.5 55.00 00.00 5555 .05.5. .5. .5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.5. .55.0. .55.5. .5. .55.5. 50.0 0 0 50.0 00.5 05.0 00.0 05.5 0 55.0 005525552 .55.5. .0. .0. .00.0. .50.0. .Nm.5. .0. .0. .0. .50.0. 05.0 0 0 00.0 00.0 05.55 0 0 0 55.0 505x050 .00.0. .0. .00.0. .50.5. .0N.5. .0. .55.0. .0. .0. .N5.5. 05.0 0 55.0 55.0 50.5 0 00.5 0 0 55.0 5555n555 505550 059 >02 500 050 mam 550 :50 >5: um< 555500 . .5 5555. 55555558 555 5555.5 127 555.00 500 505.50 500.50 500.00 .00 .00 500.00 500.00 550.50 05.5 0 00.0 50.0 50.0 0 0 00.55 05.0 05.5 030000 550.00 500 .00 550.50 500.50 .0. 500 500 .00 505.00 00.0 0 0 50.5 00.0 0 0 0 0 00.0 0500500 505.00 500 500 550.00 500 .00 .00 .00 500 500 00.0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305500 500.50 500.000 500.00 500.50 500.50 555.50 500.00 550.00 500.00 550.00 00.0 05.05 55.5 00.0 00.0 50.5 00.0 00.5 00.0 50.0 0005500 550.00 500 500 500 500.00 .00 500.00 500 .00 505.00 55.0 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.5 0 0 00.0 o0mmzmz 505.50 500 500.50 550.00 500.50 555.00 550.50 550.00 500.00 500.00 55.0 0 50.0 00.0 00.5 50.5 05.05 00.05 05.0 00.0 0005500: 550.00 500 .00 505.50 .00 500 .00 500 .00 505.00 55.0 0 0 50.0 0 0 0 0 0 00.0 0500000: 500.00 .00 505.50 500 500 .00 500.00 500 500.00 550.50 05.5 0 00.0 0 0 0 00.5 0 50.0 00.5 moucoz 500.50 .00 555.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500 500 500.00 550.50 05.0 0 05.0 05.0 00.5 05.5 0 0 50.0 05.5 000505: 500.00 500 .00 550.00 500.00 550.00 500.50 500.50 500 550.50 05.5 0 0 00.0 00.0 05.5 00.5 00.5 0 05.5 000000: 500.00 500 500 500 500.00 500.00 500.50 500 550.50 505.00 00.0 0 0 0 50.0 05.0 00.5 0 05.5 00.0 comm: 500050 own >02 ago 550 5:0 5:0 :00 5m: 550 050005 . .0 55050 050050500 054 5550.5. 128 500.50 500 500.00 550.00 550.00 505.50 550.050 500.550 505.0. 500.00 00.55 0 00.05 00.00 05.55 00.55 00.05 00.05 50.05 05.05 50.30-0958 500.00 500 500 500.50 555.50 550.00 500 500 .00 505.00 05.5 0 0 50.0 00.5 05.5 0 0 0 00.0 0500053 505.50 500 500.00 500.00 550.50 500 505.00 500.00 550.50 500.50 55.0 0 55.5 50.0 00.0 0 05.0 00.0 05.5 05.0 50503 550.00 500 500.00 550.50 550.50 500 500 500 500 550.50 00.5 0 55.5 00.5 00.5 0 0 0 0 50.0 350500503 550.00 500 500 505.50 500.00 500.00 500 550.00 500 500 00.0 0 0 50.0 00.0 05.5 0 50.5 0 0 05505 00> 550.00 500 500 500 505.50 500 500 500 550.50 555.50 00.0 0 0 0 55.5 0 0 0 05.5 05.0 5500535500 505.00 500 500 550.00 500 500 500 500 500 500 00.0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55555 .50 505.00 500 500 500 500.50 500.00 500.00 550.00 500.00 550.50 05.5 0 0 0 00.5 55.0 00.5 50.5 00.5 05.5 03505550 000550 050 >02 500 050 500 500 000 55: 000 550005 .50 50000 050055000 050.55050 129 550.50 50. 50. .0. .00 .00 .0. .0. 50. 500.5. 55.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.5 555005550 500.5. .0. .00 500 .00 50. 50. .0. .0. 555.0. 50.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.5 0530550 500.00 .0. 500 50. 500 50. 50. .00 550.05. 505.00 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.05 50.0 5555050 500.0. 50. 50. 500 .0. .0. 500.050 50. .0. 500.0. 05.0 0 0 0 0 0 05.0 0 0 05.0 00555 550.50 500 50. .0. .00 .00 .0. 500 505.550 .00 55.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.0 0 0000500 500.50 50. 50. 500 .00 500 .0. 50. 50. 555.00 50.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.5 050555 500.50 500 50. 500 50. 555.05. 50. 500.05. 50. 50. 05.5 0 0 0 0 05.5 0 00.55 0 0 0555550 550.5. 50. 50. 50. .0. 555.050 500 .0. 50. .0. 55.0 0 0 0 0 05.5 0 0 0 0 550 500.50 50. 50. 50. 500 555.050 500 500 .00 555.0. 05.5 0 0 0 0 05.5 0 0 0 05.5 55550 000550 550 >02 550 050 052 500 0550 an: 500 5.5560 502005050 00.552000 Mm mmmnwzc mo mwzyzmummm 05050505550 05 555 050555 5555555550 035. 0505055: 55.35 555505555: 5550 .5005 55905550 0055505 55595 .0055 0 0055050 50.5 3. 5505005055 50 0550555 an 055505055 .050 5505.5. 130 500.0. 500 50. .0. 50. 500 .0. 505.55. 500.05. 505.00 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.0 00.55 50.0 0505550: 500.5. 50. 50. 50. 50. 505.05. .0. 50. 50. 555.0. 00.5 0 0 0 0 05.05 0 0 0 05.5 005505: 500.50 50. .0. 50. .00 .00 500.05. .0. .0. .00 05.5 0 0 0 0 0 00.05 0 0 0 0555: 555.0. 50. 500 A00 .00 500 500 .0. 50. 500.00 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.0 50555: 500.50 500 .00 50. 500 50. 500.05. 50. 505.550 .00 00.5 0 0 0 0 0 00.05 0 05.0 0 55.5055 500.50 50. 500.00. 50. .0. 50. 50. 500 .0. 500.50 05.5 0 00.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.5 5555 500.00 50. 500.00. .00 50. 505.05. 550.55. 500.550 550.050 500.0. 00.05 0 00.00 0 0 05.05 50.05 00.05 05.05 50.55 5055 500.5. 500.00. .00 .0. .00 .0. 50. 505.55. 50. 500.5. 00.5 50.00 0 0 0 0 0 05.0 0 00.5 555505555 555.0. 500 .0. .0. 50. 505.05. 50. .00 .0. 500.5. 00.0 0 0 0 0 50.05 0 0 0 00.5 0555550 500.00 .0. 500.00. 50. .00 555.050 50. 50. 500.05. 555.0. 00.0 0 00.00 0 0 05.5 0 0 00.55 05.5 050005 050550 550 >52 550 050 000 500 000 05: 500 550055 675ng m0 M9758 Mm E m0 fig .55 5055. 550055055 050 55055 l3l 555.00 500 500 500 .00 50. 000 505.55. 550.050 500.5. 00.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.0 05.05 00.5 50053 500.50 .00 500 50. 500 50. A00 500 .0. 500.00 05.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.0 350550553 550.50 .0. 500 500 500 555.05. 500 .0. 50. .00 55.0 0 0 0 0 05.5 0 0 0 0 05500 05> 550.50 500 500 500 500 .0. 500.050 .00 50. 50. 55.0 0 0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 5555050 500.50 500 .00 .00 500 500 .00 .00 500 555.00 50.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.5 55555 .50 550.5. 500 500 500 500 .00 .00 500 505.55. 500 55.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.0 0 3505050 550.0. 500 500 50. 500 50. .00 500 50. 500.50 00.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.05 535555 500.50 500 .0. 500 500 50. .00 A00 50. 555.0. 50.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05.5 5555505 500.00 .00 000 50. .00 500 500 500.05. .00 505.0. 05.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.55 0 50.0 5055055 550.50 500.000 500 50. 500 500 500 500 50. .0. 05.0 00.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5055352 055550 550 >52 555 050 005 500 000 05: 500 050055 MUEQHmmm m0 M52900 rm mg .00 8355255 . 50 5055. 550055055 05 0 5505.5. 132 255.0. 25. A55 .55 25. 255.055 250.50. 255.55. .55 200.55 00.0 5 5 5 5 55.5 55.55 00.55 5 55.5 555.50.55.58 5.: 255 85 8. 255 .5. 85 85 8. 85.3 55.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 00.5 55555553 050550 555 >52 555 050 000 505 005 552 500 050055 MUZMQHmm—m .mO NBZDOU Mm mg .mO fig .55 5050. 550055055 500 55055 133 .5m.m. .55 .55 55. .5. A50.m5. .5. .5. 55. .5. om.~ o o o o mm.o o o o o 000x050 .0N.~5 55. 55. .55 55. .5. 25. 55. 55. 555.555 m5.5 o o o o o o c o mm.m 05500005 200.05 .5. 55. .55 25. .55 25. 255.05. 55. .5. m5.5 o o o o o c 55.0 o o 55005 550.0. 25. 25. 555 .5. 255 555 55. 255 500.055 om . m 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 .55 050005 500.0. 55. 25. .5. 55. 255 55. 555 25. 550.55. 05.5 o o o o o o o o 00.0 00050 500.0. 25. 55. 555 .55 55. 200.m55 .5. 55. 55. m5.5 o o o o o 00.0 o o o 00000x050 550.0. 25. 55. .5. 55. 250.055 55. .5. 25. 55. om.~ o o o o ~m.0 o o o o 0000500 550.0. 25. 255 555 55. 25. 55. 55. 555 500.055 om.~ o o o o o o o 5 00.55 0055500 .5~.mv 255 555 55. 55. 250.055 25. .5. 55. 555 om.m o o o o mm.0 o o o 5 >50 050550 555 >52 555 050 000 505 005 052 550 050050 muzmnHmmm mo mszaoo mm mmmuwzm 00 mwzszmummm .00000500550 05 050 050550 05000050 039 .00050052..50>5m 055010002 0500 .~005 50050000 0000505 55504 5055 0 0055000 505 555 000005005 mo m50500.>0 0505004 .5mc 05005 134 555.555 55. .5. 55. 55. 555.5. 505.55. .5. 555.55. 555.55. 55.55 5 5 5 5 55.5 55.55 5 55.55 55.5w 535555 555.5. 55. 05. 55. 555 555.55. .5. 55. 55. 55. 55.5 5 5 5 5 55.55 5 5 5 5 5555555 505.55 55. 555 555 555 55. 55. .55 555.55. 55. 55.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55.5 5 505555 555.55 555 55. 55. 555 555 555.555 555.555 555 55. 55.5 5 5 5 5 5 55.5 55.55 5 5 5055555 555.0. 555 555 55. 555 55. .55.~5. 555.55. .55.5m. 555.055 05.5 5 5 5 5 5 55.5 55.55 55.55 55.55 0505550: .55.5. 55. .5. 555 555.55. 555 .55 555.55. .55 555.55. 55.5 5 5 5 55.55 5 5 55.5 5 55.55 0555505: 555.05 55. 55. 55. .5. 555.55. 55. 555 55. 555 55.5 5 5 5 5 55.55 5 5 5 5 55555050 555.55 555 55. 55. 555 555 555 55. 55. 555.55. 55.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55.0 50555: 555.55 .55 555 555 555.55. .55 555.55. .5. .5. 555 55.5 5 5 5 55.55 5 55.55 5 5 5 5050 .55.5. 555 55. 55. 555.555 555.55 555.555 555.555 550.555 555.55. 55.5w 5 5 5 55.55 55.5 55.55 55.55 55.55 55.5 5055 055550 550 >50 555 550 500 505 005 55: 500 550055 gQHmmm m0 M9298 wm a2 .mO NUCE ..~ 5550. 550055055 550 55055 135 55m.mv 555 .55 55. 55. .mm.55 .5. 555.055 055 .55 om.m o o o o 05.0 o 05.0 o o 0555m|50I500 505.5. 555 .55 555 555 555 500.05. .55 550.0m. .55 00.0 o o o o o 00.0 o mo.mm o 00503 50m.m5 55. 555 .55 .5. 555 555 .55 .55 555.55. m5.5 o o o o o o o o 00.0 00500 05> 50m.~5 555 555 .5. .55 55. 555 .5. 505.05. .55 05.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55.5 5 3505550 000500 000 >02 500 000 5550 500 02.; >52 50.0 55505500 mUZMDHmmm ho MBZDOO_Nm mmmqwzm m0 m0¢Hzmummm .50 5550. 550050055 550 55055 136 505.555 55. 55. .5. .5. .5. 555.50. 55. 500.50. 500.50. 05.50 5 5 5 5 5 55.50 5 55.00 55.50 5055 505.5. 55. 55. 55. .5. 55. .5. .5. 550.00. .5. 05.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50.05 5 550505555 555.0. 55. 555 .5. .5. .5. 55. .5. 500.00. .5. 05.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50.55 5 050505 555.05 55. 555 55. .5. 550.00. 55. 55. 55. 555 05.0 5 5 5 5 55.00 5 5 5 5 5555555 555.05 .5. 55. 555 555 55. .5. 55. Amm.m~. 055 05.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50.05 5 5505055 505.05 555 55. .55 55. 55. 55. 505.50. .5. .5. 00.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 00.00 5 5 0550555 505.05 555 555 55. 55. 55. 550.00. .5. .5. .5. 05.0 5 5 5 5 5 55.00 5 5 5 0055 555.05 55. 55. .5. .55 55. 55. .5. 550.00. 550.55. 55.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50.05 55.55 55550 550.55. 55. 55. 555 55. .5. 55. 505.505 .5. 550.00. 50.55 5 5 5 5 5 5 00.00 5 55.50 0555550 050550 555 >52 555 550 500 505 005 55: 550 050050 052055000 00 552550 50 0000020 05 0005205000 0000555005550 05 055 050555 5555055550 035. 5505005.: 505550 555055552 050m @005 50800000 00550505 5550.4 0555 0 0055000 505 3. 500005005 “50 5550550 an 050500.05 .NN< 05555.5. 137 85.8 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2553 2: 2: 2: 05.0 5 5 5 5 5 55.00 5 5 5 55.550.055.55 Admin: 2: 2: 2: 8: 2: 2: 2: gnaw: Sm.mm: 50.55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50.55 55.50 50053 2.3.3 2: 2: 2.: 2: 805m: 2: 2: 2: 2: 55.0 5 5 5 5 55.50 5 5 5 5 350550053 82.6: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: Amm.mm: 2: 05.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50.00 5 05500 05> 85.3 2: 2: 2: 2: 25.2: 2: 3: 2: 2: 05.0 5 5 5 5 55.00 5 5 5 5 5550005: 255.0. 255 A55 .55 255 .55 255 205.50. 25. 255 05.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 00.00 5 5 8.85: 050550 555 >52 555 550 05.0 505 055 05: 550 050555 mUszHmmm m0 E8 wm a2 m0 mad; . a 5555. 555055055 550 5355. 138 35.5: .5: .5: .5: .5: .05.: .5: .5: .5: .5: 55.5 5 5 5 5 05.5 5 5 5 5 05550552 .00.5: .5: .0N.5: .0: .5: .mv.m: .vo.v: .Hm.m: .m~.v: .om.5: m>.~ o 00.5 o o Hm.m mo.v ~N.~H o~.0 va.m 05000500 .mm.a: .0: .0: .0: .wo.a: .0>.v: .ma.w: .>H.h: .m0.o: .mm.~: mv.m o o o 50.5 No.5 ma.m~ mm.m5 00.55 ~v.0 05503 .55.0: .o: .5: .o: .00.0: .5: .vm.5: .0: .ma.m: .o¢.5: mm.o o o o 00.0 o no.0 o 00.5 50.5 005:0 25.5: .5: .5: .5: 80.5: .5: $0.5: 60.0: 25.0: 85.0: Hm.m o o o om.o o 00.5 50.0 00.5 .mm.m 5050003.005 mam 20.5: .5: .5: .5: .005: .05.: .5: .5: .5: .50.: 00.5 o o o om.o 0m.m o o o 00.5 000000 .mo.5: .5: .55.M: .5: .om.5: .vm.m: .O: .o: .ov.M: .mm.0: 05.5 o 00.5 o om.5 mm.v o o mm.m 05.55 03000 .om.~: .50.05: .mo.m: .0: .mm.m: .50.5: .vm.m: .05.05: .50.0: .05.0: 55.05 00.05 50.50 55.505 05.00 00.05 mm.mm mm.mo mn.mo >0.~m 00520 .ma.5: .50.05: .5: .5: .55.5: .0: .mm.m: .vm.v: .ov.m: .00.m: 2050552 005 05.5 55.55 5 o 50.5 o 00.5 qv.v mm.m 55.55 5050555550 050550 555 >52 550 550 500 555 005 552 550 5505 5550 0000020 um 0000 00053 9500 00.0009200000 .00000500550 05 050 050550 05500550 039 .05050052 .50>50 05500055: 0500 N005 50050000 0000505 55500 0055 00005000 H 55. 05 .0: 0000 0093 55mm .80 02055. 139 .50.5: .5: .5: .5: .5: .5: .5: .55.0: .5: .5: 55.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 05.0 5 5 05055050 .05.5: .5: .5: .5: .m5.5: .5: .05.0: .5: .50.5: .5: 55.5 5 5 5 00.5 5 55.0 5 50.5 5 05593 .50.5: .5: .5: .5: .55.5: .5: .05.~: .5: .50.0: .05.0: 05.5 5 5 5 05.5 5 00.0 5 00.0 50.0 00550 .55.0: .5: .5: .5: .m5.5: .5: .55.0: .55.5: .55.5: .05.0: 05.0 5 5 5 00.5 5 00.0 55.5 05.5 05.00 500000z,550 000 .55.5: .5: .5: .5: .55.0: .5: .5: .5: .5: .55.0: 55.5 5 5 5 05.5 5 5 5 5 55.0 5:000 .05.0: .5: .5: .5: .mm.0: .5: .50.0: .50.5: .N5.5: .50.0: 50.55 55.550 55.550 55.550 55.55 55.550 55.55 55.05 50.55 55.55 00000 .50.0: .5: .5: .5: .55.0: .5: .5: .55.0: .05.0: .00.5: 0055502 555 05.0 5 5 5 05.5 5 5 00.0 50.0 00.00 0500000050 000000 005 >52 poo 000 050 055 :55 05: 50< 5005 5000 5005 00050 005m 00 0000255000 00000000550 0.0 055 050550 05500500 030. 55000002 .5938 000000555: 0500 .0000 50850000 0000500 00504 5.050 0 0000000 00 .0: 0000 00000 0050 .0004 0005.0. 140 Amo.mv on .m¢.mm. .ov Ac. Ac>.mH. AHo.o~v Aom.v~. .ma.mmv .mm.ov ~>.ma o no.mm o o mm.va mm.ma m~.om mm.am Ha.w mnwcaflmm .Hn.>v Acv Ao. gov on Amm.H~V Ahm.m~. Ama.mm. .oo.mm. Amh.m. m~.om o o o o mv.am mm.mn mm.am oo.om nm.~m memo: .ow.av on on on on Ac. Ac. Ao. .o. Amo.~. o>.o o o o o o o o o mm.H mmusg Amm.av on on Ac. Ac. .o. Ac. Ac. on Ah>.mv :3 o o o o o o o o afim .8333 can ma Ema. 8. 8v 8. 8. 8. 8. .8 8. $m.£ mm.¢ o o o o o o o o Ha.w mcoomm $98 8. $662 8. 8V .2 8. 3. Sfimd .84: Ho.ma o nm.ma o o o o o mm.m mn.mm czmmm AH>.mV Amv.vmv Amv.omv on on .Hw.m~v Ao. A¢m.mav Aoa.mav Aom.m. mm.ma wo.mm hm.oa o o mm.vm o om.ma mm.o H¢.m mmHHm Smfiv .mvém. 8. z: 2: 2: A34: 8V afimd 73.3 EH52 can. >~.HH mm.mm o o o o mw.> o m~.m hm.ba HMHUHMHuum 88% own >02 HBo 9% m3 :6 can an: “ac coma fimm ammo mmmwa BHfim mwzfizmummm .mmmmnucmumm.cw mum muonuw @Hmcamum 039 .cme£Uflz .um>Hmnmuuwsvumz mumm .mmma umnemumo nmsoucu Hanna scum 4 cowuomm ca Aw..cwms mwmmu uHmm .mm< wands 141 Aao.m. Ac. Ac. .o. Ac. Amm.m. .o. .o. .o. .o. Ho.” 0 o o o o>.e o o o o mumfimofiz Amn.mv Ao. Ac. .0. .o. Am~.m. Amm.mav An>.ma. Amm.na. Am~.HH. mo.m o o o o m>.q mh.ma ea.~ mm.ma mm.m mumccamm .Ho.mv on Ac. Ao. .-.n~. Ah~.ma. Ama.mm. Am>.m~v .m~.m~. .mm.mav mm.mm o o o -.- m~.ea ms.mo oo.om no.9e mm.o~ means .Ho.~. .o. Ac. .0. Ac. Ac. Ac. .uu.ma. .o. .o. Ho.H o o o o o o ¢H.~ o o “mamofiz.ncm mam Am¢.mv Ao. on .o. Amn.-. .m~.¢av .o. .ov Ao. on mo.m o o o ~m.~m nm.m~ o o o o mcooam Amm.h. .o. Ac. Ao. .mm.o~. Amm.mfl. .o. .o. .mm.o~. .vm.mfiv na.na o o o HH.HH Hm.m~ o c oo.o~ mm.mm :zmmm .m¢.m. .0. Ac. .ov Ama.mm. Amm.mflv Aoa.~H. .Hm.m~. .mm.omv .mm.mfl. m~.m~ o o o qq.vv Hm.m~ mm.» H~.mm oo.o~ mm.o~ mmfifim Ao¢.vv .o. on .0. Ac. Ac. AOH.~H. .o. .o. .Hm.mav Hmusumz cam mo.m o o o o o m~.m o o hm.ofl HmfloHMflunm :88m 08 >02 80 8m 84 :6 56 mm: in 8mm fimm ammo mamma aHgm go_muaazmummm .mwmwficwumm cum mum 98.4.5 CE 05. 56030.9 .um>Hm muawsvumz mumm .NmmH umnsmomo nusoucu Hanna scum u cowuomm ca_Aw._cmms mmmxu ufimm .omc mfinma 142 .868 .8 .8 .8 .8 .868 .8 .8 .868 .8 S... o o o o 86w 0 o 2.: o mgmm .368 .8 .8 .8 .8 .868 .868 .8 .348 .868 86m 6 o o 6 86m 86m 0 mm.mm 86m 9503 .mm.8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .868 .8 mm.m o o o o o o o 3.: o 8.232 can b... .36.: .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .368 .868 mm.mm o o o o o o o .21: 8.8 860m .368 .8 .8 .8 .8 .863 .868 .868 .868 .8 86m 0 o o 6 86m 86m mm.mm -.mm o mmflm .868 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .968 .868 .868 Hangmz can 86H 6 o o o o o 3.8 3.: 86m H3388 83% own .82 poo mam 9% :6 56 mm: a... com: fimm ammo mg .523 m0 mm<§m .mmmwficmumm 5 mum muoupd gm 03H. .QMmEUE $8.3m muumswumz muwm .mmma HmQEmUmQ nmsounu SHE scum m cofluomm CH .8 0mm: may “3.6m Km... magma. 143 .¢H.o8 .o8 .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .o. .68 .mm.o. ho.o o o o o o o o o -.o “mayo .mm.o8 .o8 .o. .mm.H. .mm... .om.v. .o. .mm.m. .ma.~8 .o. .u.. o o am.~ HH.~ «H.o o hm.m mm.H o usage can ccefimm .H¢.~8 .o8 .mm.08 .mm.m8 .H~.m8 .ma.m8 .o8 .o8 .o. .o. m>.om o om.m Hm.mn oo.mw om.mm o o o o caefimm .o~.H8 .o. .o8 .om.o8 .Ho.~8 .vm.m8 .mm.m. .mm.m. .o. .o. ma.HH o o ov.o No.8 mo.mm Hm.mm oH.mH o o agony .ma... .o8 .o. .NH.H8 .mo.v. .«m.m. .o. .o. .o. .o. mm.w o o «m.ma ma.m~ mm.v o o o o coeflmm goozflnu .Ho.H8 .o8 .o. .NH.H8 .¢m.a. .ma.m8 .mm.m8 .mm.m. .HH.m. .om.a. om.m o o om.o Hm.H ov.HH m~.m aa.ofl om.m om.H usage czoum .mm.~8 .o. .mm.o8 .¢m.m8 .vm.a. .vm.m. .¢m.a. .vm.m8 .m¢.m8 .o¢.H8 mm.m¢ oo.ooa qm.¢m >m.n Hm.H mm.v mm.o ~¢.hm ma.mm ma.mm usoue_3oncamm :ommmm coo >02 uoo mmm maa .55 can an: yam unvsom mmfluwmm BEUDOm mmHummm m0 é .mmmwficwumm 5 mum muohm gm 039 Bums: 9.8m .83 “89508 £999.93 SHE Eouw 95.3wa :m 5” .8 mumamcm an a? mmwoomm .Gmmfinoflz . “EN/Hum .mN¢ mHnme 144 mo.a o o mv.m ¢N.H ho.m o o o o usoua can caefimm Simv 8. A34; 35.9 3.8 Enos 2: 8V 8. 8. mo.mm o mm.m Hm.m> mm.mm oo.mm o o o o cOEHmm :9: 8. 8v 5:: 89.2 Amméd tad. age .2 8. ¢m.oa o o av.o aa.o ho.mm oo.mm no.0H o o usoua Aon.a. on on Am>.v. Av>.vv Ao>.m. .o. on on on wm.oa o o ma.oa vm.mm hm.m o o o o :OEHmm goocflnu Aho.av on on .mH.H. Ahm.av Aba.wv Amh.mv Amm.mv Aan.mv .mm.a. he.m o o mm.o mm.a hm.wa hm.m m~.va hm.> NH.H usoua czoum .vm.mv Ac. AmH.>. Amv.m. Ahm.av Ama.m. Amo.mv Am~.mav Aah.mv Amm.av nm.mm oo.ooH mo.mm mm.n mm.H mm.m mm.H vm.mm ma.~m mm.mm usous_3oncflmm commmm owe >02 uuo mmm ms< Hub can an: Ham unmsom mmfloomm 950:8 ”38mm .mO 8&9; .mwmmnucmnmm ca mum muounw vumncmum 039 muumvgmz mumm .mmma HmnEmomQ cmDOHnu 3%: 59¢ m :oflpomm CH 3. mumamcm an unmsom mmflummm .fimEoE £92 .mmm wanna 145 Ao¢.H. Ac. Ac. .o. Ac. go. Ac. .0. Ac. .mo.~v 35 o o o o o o o 0 mm; 350 Amm.a. Ac. on Ao. on .ov on .vm.oa. .o. Ac. H¢.H o o o o o o om.~H o o usage new :oeHmm .m~.¢v Ao. Ac. Ao. Ac. Ama.¢mv Ac. .o. on on vo.~ o o o o mv.an o o o o :oeHmm Amm.m. on on Ac. .ov .ma.v~. .mn.¢av Ama.m~. Ac. .ov mn.¢a o o o o nm.m~ Hm.~m mm.am o o psoua AHH.~. .ov Ac. on Ac. Ao. Am~.¢a. .ov .oH.~H. .mo.~v HH.N o o o o o mo.p o m~.m mm.a usage asoum Anm.n. on on Ao. on .o. .ov .om.¢m. Aoa.mav A~>.m. em.mn oo.ooa oo.ooa o o o o mm.mm mn.mm om.nm usena.3oncflmm :ommmm own >02 poo awm 09¢ Han can an: um¢ unmsom mmfioomm BEUDQM mMHUmEm m0 8‘? .mwmmaucmem 5 93 mnouum gm 03H. mpuwzvumz 9.80. .33 umnsmoma £05053 Hafiz 59¢ a cowuomw CH 5 mumamcm an unmsom mmfiommm .cwmflnoflz .Hmsflm .om< manna 146 Amn.mv Ac. Ac. .o. Amq.amv Amm.ma. .o. Ann.mav gov .o. mo.m o o o mm.mm Hm.m~ o «H.n o 0 poems new caefimm on.nv on on .ov Amv.amv .om.a~v on Ac. .o. Ac. ma.ma o o o no.oo mo.~¢ o o o o :ceHmm Amo.mv Ac. A0. A0. Acv Amm.mav Ame.amv Amm.am. Ac. .ov om.om o o o o Hm.m~ oo.mn mv.a~ o o usage Amm.o. Ac. on on on Amm.m. Amw.amv A>~.mav .mo.o~. .mm.aa. HH.HH o o o o o>.¢ oo.m~ ¢H.h oo.o~ mm.m usoua :zoum Aom.m. on on on on Ao. Ao. Aflo.mm. .me.omv .m~.HH. mv.mq o o o o o o m~.¢o oo.om no.Hm usoua_3oncflmm aommmm own >oz poo mmm mqa fish can an: umm pnmsom mmfloomm BmUDOm mmHQmmm m0 8mg .mmmmficmnmm 2..” mum muouum 0.3653 038 muuwsvumz muwm .mmma umnewomo £05053 3.23 scum U cofluomm a.“ E mumamam an unmzom mwfiommm .Qmmflowz ~ hawk/Hm .Hm< wanna 147 73.3 on on Ac. A0. A0. Ac. Ac. ANN.>Nv .ov $6 0 o o o o o o m~.~m o 5.53 cam page :93. A8 8V 8v 2: 806$ 8v 8. 8v 8. oo.om o o o o 8.9.. 863 o o o page A35. 8. 8V 2: 8. 8””.va 8v 2: Ammém. 8. 36 o o o o oo.mm o o .313 o ”Eons czoum AHN.5H. Ao. A0. Ac. .0. .om.mvv Ao. on .m¢.am. .o. 5.3 o o o o oo.m~ o 853 $.mo 8.2: page 3083mm commmm own >02 poo mwm ma¢ Han :56 mm: Ham unusom mmwowmm BEUDOm mmHUmmm .mO mu<§m .mmmmficwumd an mum quHHm gm 03H. .ammflnodz .Hmzm muumsvumz mumm .Nmma Hwnemomo nmsounu Sun? 295 m coauomm CH 2: muwflucm ha unmsom mmflowmm .Nm< manna. 148 Table A33. Estimated boat catches for section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River,Michigan. Twostandarderrorsare in parenthesis. ESTIMATED BOAT CATCHES Species Total C/H Jan . Feb Mar Season Angler Hours 0 0 124 124 (0) (0) (195) (195) Angler Trips 0 0 34 34 (0) (0) ' (53) (53) Table A34. Estimated shore catches for section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors arein Parenthesis. ESTIMATED SHORE CATCHES Species Total C/H Jan Feb Mar Season Rainbow Trout 0.0582 23 67 375 465 (0.0452) (43) (13) (325) (328) Angler Hours 459 783 6,778 7,988 (642) (155) (2,515) (2,600) Angler Trips 103 163 2,036 2,302 (155) (37) (867) (882) 149 Table A35. Estimated total catch for section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. ESTIMATED TOTAL CATCH Species Total C/H Jan Feb Mar Season Rainbow Trout 0.0559 23 67 375 465 (0.0431) (43) (13) (325) (328) Angler Hours 459 783 7,077 8,319 (642)(155) (2,520)(2,605) Angler Trips 103 163 2,113 2,387 (155) (37) (866) (883) Table A36. Estimated shore catches for section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. ESTIMATED SHORE CATCHES Species Total C/H Jan Feb Mar Season Rainbow Trout 0.0303 0 24 0 24 (0.0739) (0) (57) (0) (57) Brown Trout 0.0303 0 24 0 24 (0.0739) (0) (57) (0) (57) Total Catch 0.0606 0 48 0 48 (0.1077) (0) (81) (0) (81) Angler Hours 28 336 428 792 (168) (359) (195) (442) Angler Trips 9 103 114 226 (53) (140) (54) (159) 150 Table A37. Estimated shore catches for section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. ESTIMATED SHORE CATCHES * Species Total C/H Jan Feb Mar Season Rainbow Trout 0.0303 0 24 0 24 (0.0739) (0) (57) (0) (57) Brown Trout 0.0303 0 24 0 24 (0.0739) (0) (57) (0) (57) Total Catch 0.0606 0 48 0 48 (0.1077) (0) (81) (0) (81) Angler Hours 28 336 428 792 (168) (359) (195) (442) Angler Trips 9 103 114 226 (53) (140) (54) (159) * No boat angler estimates possible. 151 Table A38. Anglers by county of residence (%) for sections F, A and C (separate estimates for section A and estimates for section B were not possible). Two standard errors are in parenthesis. PERCENTAGE OF ANGLERS BY COUNTY OF RESIDENCE County Jan Feb Mar Season Clinton 0 0 1.09 0.55 (0) (0) (2.72) (1.10) Eaton 0 0 1.09 0.55 (0) (0) (10.25) (1.10) Genesee 7.89 5.88 1.09 7.18 (8.75) (6.59) (5.33) (3.84) Gladwin 0 0 1.09 0.55 (0) (0) (2.72) (1.10) Gratiot 0 0 1.09 0.55 (0) (0) (2.72) (1.10) Ingham 2.63 11.76 1.09 4.42 (5.19) (9.02) (2.72) (3.06) Jackson 0 3.92 0 1.10 (0) (5.44) (0) (1.56) Kalamazoo 0 1.96 0 1.10 (0) (3.88) (0) (1.10) Kent 23.68 27.45 20.65 23.20 (13.79) (12.50) (9.68) (6.28) Lake 0 7.84 1.09 4.42 (0) (7.53) (5.33) (3.06) Livingston 0 0 1.09 0.55 (0) (0) (2.72) (1.10) Macomb 2.63 0 0 0.55 (5.19) (0) (0) (1.10) Manistee 5.26 0 0 1.10 (7.24) (0) (0) (1.55) 152 Table A38 continued (page 2). PERCENTAGE OF ANGLERS BY COUNTY OF RESIDENCE County Jan Feb Mar Season Mason 0 0 2.17 1.10 (0) (3.82) (1.55) Mescota 5.26 0 5.43 3.87 (7.24) (0) (5.91) (2.87) Midland 0 5.88 4.35 4.42 (0) (6.59) (11.55) (3.06) Muskegon 0 9.80 4.35 4.97 (0) (8.33) (5.33) (3.23) Newaygo 0 0 2.17 1.10 (0) (0) (3.82) (1.55) Oakland 2.63 7.84 7.61 6.63 (5.19) (7.53) (17.55) (3.70) Oscoda 2.63 0 0 0.55 (5.19) (0) (0) (1.10) Ottawa 31.58 7.84 7.61 12.71 (15.08) (7.53) (6.98) (4.95) Saginaw 2.63 3.92 7.61 5.52 (5.19) (5.44) (6.89) (3.40) Shiawasee 5.26 0 0 1.10 (7.24) (0) (0) (1.55) Washtenaw 0 1.96 0 0.55 (0) (3.88) (0) (1.10) Wayne 7.89 3.92 2.17 3.87 (8.75) (5.44) (5.82) (2.87) Out-of-State 0 0 15.22 7.73 (0) (0) (23.18) (3.97) 153 Table A39. Bait types used by anglers (%) for sections F, A and C from.January through March 1983, Pere Marquettte River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. PERCENTAGE OF BAIT TYPES USED Bait Used Jan Feb Mar Season Flies 63.16 83.33 81.52 78.26 (15.65) (10.84) (13.82) (6.08) Spawn 31.58 16.67 13.04 17.93 (15.08) (10.14) (8.78) (5.66) Worms 0 0 3.26 1.63 (0) (0) (10.49) (1.87) Spinners 0 0 3.02 1.09 (0) (0) (3.87) (1.53) Wigglers 5.26 0 0 1.09 (7.24) (0) (0) (1.53) Table A40. Species sought by anglers (%) in sections F, A and C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. PERCENTAGE OF ANGLERS BY SPECIES SOUGHT Species Jan Feb Mar Season Rainbow Trout 100.00 100.00 98.91 99.46 (0) (0) (9.75) (1.08) Atlantic Salmon 0 0 1.09 0.54 (0) (0) (9.75) (1.08) 154 Table A 41. .Anglers by county of residence for section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. PERCENTAGE OF ANGLERS BY COUNTY OF RESIDENCE County Jan Feb Mar Season Clinton 0 0 1.41 0.72 (0) (0) (3.54) (1.43) Eaton 0 0 1.41 0.72 (0) (0) (12.88) (1.43) Genesee 13.04 6.67 9.86 9.35 (14.04) (7.44) (21.78) (4.94) Gladwin 0 0 1.41 0.72 (0) (0) (3.54) (1.43) Gratiot 0 0 1.41 0.72 (0) (0) (3.54) (1.43) Ingham 0 13.33 1.41 5.04 (0) (10.13) (3.54) (3.71) Jackson 0 4.44 0 1.44 (0) (6.14) (0) (2.02) Kalamazoo 0 2.22 0 0.72 (0) (4.39) (0) (1.43) Kent 21.74 28.89 16.90 21.58 (17.20) (13.51) (10.97) (6.98) Lake 0 2.22 9.86 3.60 (0) (4.39) (6.88) (3.16) Livingston 0 0 1.41 0.72 (0) (O) (3.54) (1.43) Macomb 4.35 0 0 0.72 (8.50) (0) (0) (1.43) Manistee 8.70 0 0 1.44 (11.75) (0) (0) (2.02) Mason 0 0 1.41 0.72 (O) (0) (3.54) (1.43) Table A41 continued (page 2). PERCENTAGE OF ANGLERS BY COUNTY OF RESIDENCE County Jan Feb Mar Season Mecosta 0 0 2.82 1.44 (0) (0) (4.96) (2.02) Midland 0 6.67 7.04 5.76 (0) (7.44) (14.60) (3.95) Muskegeon 0 8.89 2.82 4.32 (0) (8.48) (4.96) (3.45) Newaygo 0 0 1.41 0.72 (0) (0) (3.54) (1.43) Oakland 4.35 8.89 7.04 7.19 (8.05) (8.48) (21.24) (4.38) Ottawa 39.13 6.67 7.04 11.51 (20.35) (7.44) (6.88) (5.41) Saginaw 4.35 4.44 9.86 7.19 (8.50) (6.14) (8.48) (4.38) Shiawassee 4.35 0 0 0.72 (8.50) (0) (0) (1.43) Washtenaw 0 2.22 0 0.72 (0) (4.39) (0) (1.43) Wayne 0 4.44 1.41 2.16 (0) (6.14) (3.54) (2.47) Out-of-State 0 0 19.72 10.07 (0) (0) (27.23) (5.11) 156 Table A42. Bait types used by anglers (%) in section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. PERCENTAGE OF BAIT TYPES USED Bait Used Jan Feb Mar Season Flies 95.65 97.83 100.00 98.57 (8.50) (4.30) (0) (2.01) Spawn 4.35 2.17 0 1.43 (8.50) (4.30) (0) (2.01) Table A43. Species sought by anglers (%) in section F from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. PERCENTAGE OF SPECIES SOUGHT Species sought Jan Feb Mar Season Rainbow trout 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 (0) (0) (0) (0) Table A44. 157 Anglers by county of residence (%) for section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River; Michigan. are in parenthesis. Two standard errors PERCENTAGE OF ANGLERS BY COUNTY OF RESIDENCE County Jan Feb Mar Season Kalamazoo 0 O 14.29 6.67 (0) (0) (43.30) (12.88) Kent 50.00 50.00 71.43 60.00 (40.82) (70.71) (69.55) (25.30) Ottawa 50.00 50.00 14.25 33.33 (40.82) (70.71) (54.43) (24.32) Table A45. Bait types used by anglers (%) in section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. PERCENTAGE OF BAIT TYPES USED Bait Used Jan Feb Mar Season Flies 16.67 0 42.86 26.67 (30.43) (0) (43.30) (22.84) Spawn 66.67 100.00 14.29 46.67 (38.49) (0) (54.43) (20.66) Worms 0 0 42.86 20.00 (0) (0) (69.45) (20.66) Wigglers 16.67 0 0 6.67 (30.43) (0) (0) (12.88) 158 Table A46. Species sought by anglers in section C from January through March 1983, Pere Marquette River, Michigan. Two standard errors are in parenthesis. PERCENTAGE OF SPECIES SOUGHT Species Sought Jan Feb Mar Season Rainbow Trout 100.00 100.00 85.71 93.33 (0) (0) (43.30) (12.88) Atlantic Salmon 0 0 14.29 6.67