fl) 1". 'h l a!) This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF UNDERUTILIZED FISH IN INLAND LAKES IN MICHIGAN presented by Richard Paul O'Neal has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __M.._S.._ degree in W and Wildlife tyillbLn /f?i/e:;;Ldfiw\«r Major professor Date September 13, 1978 0—7 639 LIBRARY Michigan Sub. University THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF UNDERUTILIZED FISH IN INLAND LAKES IN MICHIGAN By Richard Paul O'Neal 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 1978 ABSTRACT THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF UNDERUTILIZED FISH IN INLAND LAKES IN MICHIGAN By Richard Paul O'Neal The purpose of this study is to identify the species of underuti- lized fish and bodies of water in Michigan with the potential for commercial exploitation. The primary species of underutilized fish in inland lakes in Michi- gan are carp (Qyprinus carpio), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) and black bullhead (Ictalurus melas). The white sucker is the primary commercial species in 54.9%, bullhead in 24.9% and carp in 20.22 of the designated inland waters of the state. A total of 116,694 acres may be available for the commercial har- vest of underutilized fish in Michigan's inland waters. The total acreage for each region of the state is as follows: Region I - 37,277 acres; Region II - 63,868 acres; and Region III - 15,549 acres. Based on prelimr inary biomass estimates, these waters support 7,996,425 pounds of rough fish. Or by region: Region I - 1,453,803 pounds (using an average of 39-pounds~per acre); Region II --4,023,684 pounds (using an average of Richard Paul O'Neal 63 pounds per acre); and Region III - 2,518,938 pounds.(using an average of 162 pounds per acrel. Natural lakes account for 78.8% (91,976 acres) of the designated waters in the state while impoundments account for the remaining 21.2% (24,718 acres). Other information discussed includes methods of harvest used in inland lakes, rough fish programs in other states, a review of the liter- ature on rough fish management and some important aspects concerning this type of management. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr. Niles Kevern, Dr. Charles Liston, and Dr. T. Wayne Porter, for the assistance they gave me in preparing this thesis. I am indebted to many members of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for providing the information necessary to complete this study. I would like to express special appreciation to Edward Bacon, Gary Schnicke, Ned Fogle and all other District Fishery Biologists and Habitat Bio- logists for their time and assistance. Richard Lundgren and Tom Rohrer provided valuable information on chemical contaminants. This thesis was typed by Joan Tims at the Michigan State University Research Lab- oratory at Ludington, Michigan. Research funds were provided by the Michigan State University Agriculture Experimental Station, the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission, and the Michigan Sea Grant Program. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SELECTION, DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF LAKES AND RIVERS UNDERUTILIZED FISH IN MICHIGAN LAKES . . . . . . . . . Species of Fish Currently Underutilized . . . . . Estimation of Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contaminants in Underutilized Fish Heavy Metals Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Flavor Impairment of DISCUSSION . . . . . . Region I . . . . ., Region II . . . . Region II . . . . All Regions . . . METHODS OF HARVEST USED Seines . . . . . Trap and Fyke Nets Trawls . . . . . Fish Traps . . . . Baiting . . . . . Ultrasonic Tracking and Sonar . . iii l4 14 15 18 18 25 38 55 58 58 63 66 66 66 70 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Other Helpful Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Optimal Fishing Seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems in Netting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A: Fishery Survey Data for 60 Inland Lakes and Rivers in :11 Chigan O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Appendix B: Heavy Metals in Fish from the Grand River, Kalamazoo River (Morrow Pond), Raisin River, and Tittabmassee River 0 C O O O O O C . C C O O O C O O O O 0 Appendix C: Concentrations of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Fish from the Grand River and the Kalamazoo River . . . . . . . Appendix D: The Commercial Harvest of Rough Fish from Inland Inland Lakes in Minnesota and Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . L IST OF mERmCES O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 O O O O O I 0 iv 71 71 62 74 83 85 . 85 105 110 113 115 Number 10 11 12 13 14 15 LIST OF TABLES Inland lakes and rivers in Michigan with the potential for commercial harvest of under— utilized fish. Common and scientific names of underutilized fish in Michigan lakes and streams. Lakes in Region I with biomass estimates. Lakes in Region II with biomass estimates. Lakes in Region III with biomass estimates. Percentage (based on weight) of rough fish in the catch from 25 inland lakes in Michigan United States and Canadian tolerance limits for heavy metals and hydrocarbons in fish and seafoods. Distribution of lakes by major commercial species and type of lake for Region I. Distribution of lakes by major commercial species and type of lake for Region II. Distribution of lakes by major commercial species and type of lake for Region III. Carp fishing in Lake Macatawa, 1927-1942. Estimates of total underutilized fish biomass, and distribution of lakes by major commercial species and type of lake for all three Michigan regions. Age, weight and length of young carp caught in various sizes of mesh in Wisconsin. Average catch (pounds) of rough fish per seine haul in East Okoboji Lake, 1940-1951. Mean number of rough fish caught, the standard deviation, and the average weight in pounds for each species of fish in the large and small seine. Page 10 11 12 13 17 19 12 39 45 57 S9 61 62 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Number l6 17 18 19 BI C1 D1 Catches of underutilized fish from certain large inland lakes in Michigan, during 1947 and 1948. Catches of suckers from sucker removal and demon- stration netting projects in certain large Michigan lakes. Total weight removed, pounds per acre removed and average weights of carp removed with a perma- nent trap from Lost Island Lake, 1944-1949. Numbers, weights and pounds per acre of fish recovered by chemically treating an area baited with corn at Slocum Lake (225 acres) following listed baiting periods. Fishery survey data for 60 inland lakes and rivers in Michigan. Heavy metals in fish from the Grand River, Kala- mazoo River (Morrow Pond), Raisin River and Tittabawassee. Concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and polychlorinated bi- phenyls (PCB's) measured in fish from the Grand River (Jackson to Grand Haven, Michigan, July, 1970), and the Kalamazoo River (Morrow Pond, July 1971). Species and volumes (pOunds) of rough fish harvested from inland lakes in Minnesota and Wisconsin. 67 69 86 106 111 114 INTRODUCTION Underutilized fish are abundant in many inland lakes, rivers and impoundments in Michigan. Presently, management of underutilized fish in Michigan's inland waters is limited to removal projects using chemicals. This resource should be utilized if possible and commercial rough fish harvest by mechanical methods may be an alternative to management with chemicals. Many other states have had programs of this nature for years and continue to have them at the present time. Recent interest in the development of markets for underutilized fish has initiated studies of their relative abundance in Michigan waters. Galloway and Kevern (1976) examined the abundance of suckers in the Great Lakes in relation to potential commercial harvest. Because of limited information, they recommended that a commercial fishery be established on a small scale and then gradually expanded if the stocks can support the fishing pressure. Investigations were conducted in the 1940's to determine the feasibility of commercial sucker harvest in inland lakes in Michigan. Crowe (1949) demonstrated that suckers can be harvested from inland lakes with benefits to game fish populations. The carp, Cyprinus carpio, is another species being considered for commercial exploitation. Since its introduction into Michigan waters in 1885 (Peterson and Drews 1957), the carp has become very abundant throughout the state. As Sigler (1958) noted, carp are probably more abundant than are any other freshwater fish in the United States. They are generally regarded by fishery biologists as being detrimental to game fish and their habitat. Feeding carp may destroy aquatic vegeta- tion and increase water turbidity (Threinen and Helm 1954). Bullheads are other underutilized fish that might be considered for commercial harvest in inland lakes. A study is presently being conducted on Lake St. Helen, Michigan, to assess the results of a commercial bull- head harvest (Schnicke, personal communication). The objective of this study is to identify the species of fish and bodies of water in Michigan that have the potential for commercial exploit- ation of underutilized fish. The discussion includes: information come piled on contaminants in fish; identification, description and avail- able species of fish for each body of water with the potential for commercial harvest; preliminary estimates of biomass for underutilized fish in inland waters; a summary of the literature on commercial harvest techniques used in inland lakes; and management considerations with a summary of the literature on rough fish management. SELECTION, DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF LAKES AND RIVERS The lakes and rivers included in this study were recommended by Michigan Department of Natural Resources fishery biologists in each dis- trict of the state. Most of these lakes are larger than 500 acres and contain substantial populations of rough fish. It should be noted that production of fish will vary in different locations of the state. Gener- ally, production will be lowest in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and greatest in the southern part of the state. Therefore, sustained yields of rough fish in northern Michigan may not be comparable to those in southern Michigan. Each of the lakes included in this study was classified according to regions and districts established by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Table l). The description of each body of water (see discussion section) includes a discussion of the major commercial species, their lengths, percentage of the total fish population (based on weight unless otherwise stated), and estimated standing crop when available. The major commercial species in each lake was indicated by the district fishery bio- logists, and the remaining information comes from fishery survey records and other publications. Chemical and tainting problems have been included where information was available. The physical description of each lake was made from contour maps obtained from the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. Department of Natural Resources fishery survey records were avail- able for most of the lakes and rivers included in this study. The most recent of these have been included in Appendix A. These surveys may or may not provide an accurate indication of the true prOportion of rough fish in each lake. Some of these surveys were conducted to evaluate the entire fish population, while others were more selective for a specific species» Survey methods also vary from lake to lake and year to year making comparisons among them difficult. The Common fishery survey methods used By the Michigan Department of Natural Resources are experimental gill nets, trap nets, fyke nets; seines~and electrofishing gear. There is also seasonal variation in these.survey33 Carp and bullhead are most easily netted in the spring and fall months, and less susceptible to capture in the.summer. Suckers~arermost easily~netted during the spring spawning season. Table 1. Inland lakes and rivers in Michigan with the potential for commercial harvest of underutilized fish. 1 _ 1 Lake No. Region District County Lake or River 1 I 1 Houghton Otter Lake 2 I 2 Iron Chicagon Lake 3 I 2 Iron Perch Lake 4 I 3 Alger Au Train Lake 5 I 3 Alger Au Train Power Basin 6 I‘ 3 Delta Moss Lake 7 I 3 ‘Marquette Sundstrom Lake 8 I 4 Luce Blind Sucker Flooding 9 I 4 Luce Muskallonge Lake 10 I' 4 ‘Mackinac Brevoort Lake 11 I 4 Mackinac Manistique Lake 12 I 4 Mackinac South Manistique Lake 13 I 4 Schoolcraft Gulliver Lake 14 I 4 Schoolcraft Indian Lake 15 II 5 Alpena Seven Mile Pond 16 II 5 Cheboygan Munro Lake 17 II 5 Emmet French Farm Lake 18 II 5 Presque Isle Grand Lake 19 II 6 Newaygo Hess Lake 20 II 6 Newaygo Hardy Pond 21 II 6 Newaygo Fremont Lake 22 II 6 Manistee Manistee Lake 23 II 6 Mason Pere Marquette Lake 24 II 7 Alcona Bamfield Pond 25 II 7 Crawford Lake Margrethe 26 II 7 Iosco Cooke Pond 27 II 7 Iosco Foote Pond 28 II 7 Iosco Loud Pond 29 II 7 Iosco Tawas Lake 30 II 7 Iosco Van Etten Lake 31 II 7 Missaukee Missaukee Lake 32 II 7 Oscoda Mio Pond 33 II 7 Roscommon Houghton Lake 34 II 7 Roscommon Higgins Lake 35 II 7 Roscommon Lake St. Helen 36 II 7 Ogemaw Sage Lake 37 II 8 Gladwin Secord Lake 38 II 8 Gladwin Wixom Lake 39 II 8 Midland Sanford Lake 40 III 9 Montcalm Whitefish Lake 41 III 9 Muskegon Mona Lake 42 III 9 Muskegon Muskegon Lake 43 III 9 Muskegon White Lake 44 III 9 Ottawa Lake Macatawa 45 III 11 Genesee Holloway Reservoir 46 III 12 Barry Thornapple Lake 47 III 12 Cass Indian Lake Table 1. (Cont'd.) Lake No. Region1 District1 County Lake or River 48 III 12 Kalamazoo Morrow Pond 49 III 12 St. Joseph Mud Hole 50 III 12 St. Joseph Sturgis Impoundment 51 III 13 Branch Marble Lake 52 III 13 Branch Union Lake 53 III Eaton, Jackson and Ingham Grand River 54 III Lenawee, Monroe River Raisin 55 III‘ 13 Whyne Flat Rock Impoundment 56 III 13 Washtenaw‘ Ford Lake 57 III‘ 14 ‘Macomb Stony Creek Impoundment 58 III 14 Oakland Kent Lake 59; III 14 Oakland Tipsico 60. III 14 Washtenaw' Belleville 1. Classification of regions and districts used by the Michigan DNR Fisheries-Division. UNDERUTILIZED FISH IN MICHIGAN LAKES Species of Fish.Currently Underutilized For this discussion, an underutilized (rough, coarse, commercial or trash) fish.is one that is low in sport or commercial demand. Bullhead and suckers are sometimes considered important in local areas of the state; in those specific locations they were not considered an under- utilized species. The major underutilized or commercial species of fish in Michigan's inland lakes are carp, white sucker, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead and black bullhead. All of the lakes included in this study contain at least one of these species as the major commercial fish. Other species of rough fish common in Michigan's inland lakes include channel catfish, freshwater drum, redhorse, longnose sucker, spotted sucker, northern hog sucker, bow- fin, quillback, longnose gar, shortnose gar, goldfish, gizzard shad and alewife (Table 2). In general, these species were not as abundant as the major commercial species but sometimes they formed a substantial portion of the fish papulation. Estimation of Biomass A number of attempts have been made to provide fish biomass esti- mates in Michigan lakes. These estimates were summarized by Schneider (1973). Schneider (1973) provided adjusted estimates of fish biomass for these lakes based upon information that the original estimates were too low due to incomplete recovery of fish after poisoning. For lakes and ponds less than ten feet deep Schneider (1973) assumed 100% recovery of fish and the original estimates were not adjusted. For lakes greater than ten feet deep he assumed 60% recovery and the original estimates were adjusted accordingly. To be consistent with Schneider's (1973) methods, the same adjustments have been applied to estimates of fish biomass for 16 lakes recently poisoned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Tables 3, 4, 5). All lakes for which biomass estimates are available were classi- fied according to three regional areas of the state: Region I - Upper Peninsula, Region II - northern half of the Lower Peninsula, Region III - southern half of the Lower Peninsula. One estimate was determined for each region of the state by using the average biomass for all lakes in_that region (Tables 3, 4, 5). Average standing craps for each of the regions are as follows: Region I - 59.1 pounds per acre, Region II - 95.8 pounds per acre, and Region III - 245.6 pounds per acre. Twenty-five lakes in this study with potential for commercial harvest have fishery survey records indicating the percentage of biomass that rough fish contribute to the total fish population (Table 6). Using a state-wide average, rough fish generally account for 662 of the standing crop of fish in these lakes. After applying this percentage to the total estimated standing craps, the following estimates of rough fish standing crops were determined for each region of the state: Region I - 39 pounds per acre, Region II - 63 pounds per acre and Region III - 162 pounds per acre. Only a few of the lakes for which biomass estimates are available contain large populations of rough fishes, therefore, these biomass estimates may not accurately represent the lakes included in the present study. However, the estimates given here should provide a preliminary indication of the biomass of fish in Michigan lakes. It should be empha- sized that the estimates will be subject to change as new information becomes available . Table 2. Common and scientific names of under- utilized fish in Michigan lakes and 1 streams . White Sucker Longnose Sucker Quillback. Northern HOg Sucker Buffaloes Spotted Sucker Redhorses Yellow~Bullhead Brown Bullhead Black Bullhead Channel Catfish Carp Goldfish Freshwater Drum Bowfin Longnose Gar Shortnose Gar Gizzard Shad Alewife Catastomus commersoni CatOstomus catostomus ‘Carpiodes cyprinus Hypentelium nigricans Ictiobus spp. Minytrema melangps 'MOxostoma spp. Ictalurus natalis Ictalurus nebulosus Ictalurus melas Ictalurus punctatus Cyprinus carpio Carassius auratus Aplodinotus grunniens Amia calva Lepisosteus osseus Lgpisosteus platostomus Dorosoma cepedianum Alosa pseudoharenggs 1. Names taken from Bailey et a1. (1970). 10 Table 3. Lakes in Region I with biomass estimates. Type of Area Pounds County Lake lake (acres) per acre From Schneider (1973)1 Gogebic Marsh bass 65.0 52.0 Gogebic Katherine bass 48.0 10.0 Gogebic Cub bass 28.0 62.0 Marquette Swanzy trout 15.0 52.0 Luce Holland trout 5.3 137.0 Menominee Linnbeck trout 5.1 48.0 Marquette Twin trout 5.0 17.0 Lakes recently treated by the Michigan DNR2 Baraga Parent - 215.0 38.0 Marquette Brocky - 105.0 47.5 Marquette Johnson - 85.7 125.8 Alger Island - 34.0 102.3 Ontonagon Courtney - 33.0 28.3 Luce Pratt - 24.0 92.5 Chippewa Soldier - 18.8 51.9 Baraga Alberta - 17.0 21.7 Average 59.1 1. Adjusted biomass estimates by Schneider (1973). 2. These estimates have been adjusted to be consistent with Schneider's (1973) estimates. 11 Table 4. Lakes in Region II with biomass estimates. Type of Area Pounds County Lake lake (acres) per acre From Schneider (1973)1 Osceola Center trout 38.8 284 Grand Traverse Sand No. 3 (1969) bass 14.9 73 Ogemaw Jewet (1958) bass 12.9 100 Otsego Ford (1946) trout 10.7 204 Wexford Cadillac bass 1,150.0 25 Grand Traverse Fife (1950) bass 619.0 80 Crawford Howe bass 13.4 63 Ogemaw- South.Pond bass 1.3 58 Montmorency East Twin bass 830.0 48 Otsego Big Bear bass 362.0 100 Ogemaw Devoe trout 130.0 57 Ogemaw‘ Grebe bass 72.5 192 Cheboygan North Twin bass 27.1 36 Grand Traverse Sand No. 2 (1971) bass 17.3 12 Ogemaw' Lodge bass 17.2 121 Otsego Booth bass 16.0 37 Grand Traverse Sand No. 3 (1971) bass 14.9 241 Montmorency East Fish. trout 13.5 50 Alcona Clear bass 11.3 195 Alcona Obrien trout 10.4 45 Otsego Ford (1971) trout 10.2 40 Oscoda N. Basin Twin bass 7.8 87 Newaygo Rimes No. 3 trout 6.8 228 Otsego Fitzek trout 6.2 32 Ogemaw~ Scaup bass 5.8 45 Oscoda Pike No. 4 trout 4.6 73 Otsego Pond No. 4 bass 1.6 113 Lakes recently treated by the Michigna DNR2 Crawford Shupac - 109.0 92 Montcalm Sage - 51.0 87 Crawford Kneff - 13.0 57 Average 95.8 1. Adjusted biomass estimates by Schneider (1973). 2. These estimates have been adjusted to be consistent with Schneider's :C1973) adjusted estimates. 12 Table 5. Lakes in Region III with biomass estimates. Type of Area Pounds County Lake lake (acres) per acre From Schneider (1973)1 Kent Belmont No. 2 bass 6.4 239 Calhoun Emerald bass 5.6 159 Kent Belmont No. 1 bass 4.4 305 Kent Belmont No. 3 bass 2.5 233 Clinton Burke trout 1.8 100 Washtenaw Whitmore bass 677.0 57 Washtenaw Sugarloaf bass 180.0 95 Hillsdale Bear bass 117.0 90 Washtenaw Cassidy (1964) bass 46.2 145 Kalamazoo Wintergreen bass 39.3 360 Oakland Deep trout 14.8 63 Washtenaw Walsh bass 10.2 153 Washtenaw Third Sister bass 10.0 145 Van Buren Pond No. 24 bass 33.7 184 Washtenaw Lower Loch.Alpine bass 12.5 190 washtenaw' Upper Loch Alpine bass 10.9 301 Washtenaw Dix Pond bass 1.2 128 Kalamazoo Debruin's bass 0.8 301 washtenaw- Rash Pond bass 0.2 96 Lakes recently treated by the Michigan DNR2 Ionia Long - 356.0 185 Montcalm Rainbow‘ - 155.0 217 Oakland Crescent - 97.0 180 Kent Big Brown - 85.0 162 Kent Long 3 - 47.0 115 Genesee Thread 3 - 65.0 699 wayne Flat Rock Impoundment - 154.0 378 Washtenaw- Ford Impoundment3 - 975.0 759 Washtenaw Belleville Impoundment - 1,270.0 784 Ottawa Macatawa3 - 1,780.0 300 Average 245.6 3. Adjusted biomass estimates by Schneider (1973). These estimates-have been adjusted to be consistent with Schneider's (1973) adjusted estimates; Estimates not adjusted. 13 Table 6. Percentage (based on weight) of rough fish in the catch from 25 inland lakes in Michigan . Z of rough fish Region County Lake in the catch I Houghton Otter 78.73 I Iron Chicagon 84.91 I Alger Au Train 64.74 I Alger Au Train Power Basin 64.64 I Delta Moss 59.66 I Marquette Sundstrom 71.89 I Luce Muskallonge 86.15 I Mackinac Brevoort 57.39 I Schoolcraft Gulliver 76.79 II Alpena Seven Mile Pond 69.74 II Newaygo Hess 30.14 II Newaygo Hardy Pond 39.14 11 Missaukee Missaukee 26.30 11 Roscommon Houghton 33.20 II Roscommon St. Helen 43.21 II Ogemaw Sage 33.37 III Ottawa Macatawa 96.01 III Genesee Holloway Reservoir 68.31 111 Barry Thornapple 77.78 III Kalamazoo Morrow Pond 70.86 III St. Joseph Sturgis Impoundment 75.24 III Branch Union 85.48 III Wayne Flat Rock Impoundment 83.29 III Washtenaw Ford Impoundment 86.75 III Washtenaw Belleville Impoundment 98.00 Average 66.47 1. All figures obtained from Michigan DNR lake fishery surveys except for Lake Macatawa - See Trimberger (1974): Refer to Appendix A for more detailed information. 14 Contaminants in Underutilized Fish A limited amount of data on contaminants in fish is available for inland lakes in Michigan. Recent information has become available through the Michigan Department of Natural Resources on heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons and impairment of flavor in fish (Grant 1977; Hesse and Evans 1972; Hesse and Willson 1972; Lundgren 1976, 1978; Willson 1973; Willson and Hesse 1973; Schrouder 1972). This information is included in the discussion section for each appropriate lake. In Michigan, contaminant problems in inland waters are generally most prevalent in large streams and impoundments, especially below areas with substantial municipal development. Most of these rivers and impound- ments are in the southern portion of the state. As a criterion for this study, any lake with evidence that contami- nants are present in the flesh of fish was eliminated as a present poten- tial source of underutilized fish. Several lakes and rivers with large populations of underutilized fish have been included in the discussion as potential future sources for commercial harvest. The fish in these lakes are considered to be unmarketable at the present time because of chemical contamination or tainting. They may become marketable if these problems are reduced to within the desired limits of acceptability. Heavy*Metals Fish-have the capacity to accumulate certain contaminants from their environment. SOme evidence suggests that certain heavy metals, in addi- tion to mercury, may-accumulate in the flesh of commercially valuable rough.fishe3u Hess and Evans (1972) found that mercury was concentrated greatest by predatory species of fish while zinc, chromium, copper, man- ganese and nickel tended to Be highest in bottom feeders. Their findings 15 indicated that increasing levels of heavy metals in water and sediments may cause similar increases in fish. Mercury is the only heavy metal for which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has established tolerance limits in fish and seafoods. Canadian officials have set tollerance limits for four other metals in marine and freshwater animals (Table 7). Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls are two other groups of contaminants that may limit the value of commercial fishes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has set tolerance limits in fish and seafoods for DDT, dieldrin and polychlorinated biphenyls (Table 7). Impairment of Flavor Tainting of fish by organic compounds may substantially reduce the value of a commercial fishery. A large variety of organic compounds are capable of imparting objectionable tastes and odors to the flesh of fish. These materials are sometimes capable of impairing flavor at concentrations far below levels otherwise considered detrimental to aquatic organisms (Shumway and Palensky 1973). The rate of flavor impairment may vary with the type of chemical and exposure time. Shumway and Palensky (1973) found that rainbow trout (§3;Eg, gairdneri) exposed to high concentrations of various chemicals (PYri- dine, butanethiol, 2,4 - dichlorophenol and gfcresol) appeared to obtain maximum off-flavor in 33.5 hours or less. Substantial increases in off-flavor occurred at high concentrations of butanethiol and 2,4 -dich- lorophenol after only 15 minutes of exposure. Where tainting is a problem, the off-flavor may be eliminated or reduced by transferring the fish to freshwater ponds. This method 16 does not always reduce the off-flavor in fish (Shumway and Palensky 1973). Shumway and Palensky (1973) determined the clearing rate of flavor impairment in rainbow trout for varying concentrations of 2,4 - dich- lorophenol. Off-flavor values for trout exposed to 100 ppb of 2,4 - dichlorophenol were substantially reduced after 6.5 hours in fresh water, and returned to normal after 33.5 hours of exposure. At 10 ppb, flavor impairment was gone after 6.5 hours exposure to fresh water. At 1 ppb, little or no change occurred in the off-flavor index with exposure to fresh water. 17 Table 7. United States and Canadian tolerance limits for heavy metals and hydro- carbons in fish and seafoodsl. Metal or Tolerance Compound limit (ppm) Official Mercury 0.5 Canada and U.S. Arsenic 5.0 Canada Lead 10.0 Canada Copper 100.0 Canada Zinc 100.0 Canada DDT 5.0 r U.S. Dieldrin 0.3 U.S. PCB 5.0 U.S. 1. Taken from Hesse and Evans (1972), and Hesse and Willson (1972). DISCUSSION Region I Region I has 37,277 surface acres of inland waters that might pro- vide a commercial source of underutilized fish.‘ Of these, 4,400 acres (11.82) are impounded waters while the remaining 32,877 acres (88.22) are natural lakes (Table 8). The 14 lakes and impoundments range in size from 786 surface acres to 10,130 surface acres. Based on an average estimated standing crop of 39 pounds per acre, these waters support a biomass of 1,453,803 pounds of rough fish. White suckers are the predominant commercial species in this region of the state; in 89.9% of the listed waters, suckers are designated as the major commercial species (Table 8). In the remaining 10.1% of the designated waters black bullhead and brown bullhead are the predominant commercial species. Carp and other underutilized fish are not important commercial species in this are of the state. All of the designated waters in Region I are less than 30 feet deep with.the exception of Chicagon Lake (maximum depth of 115 feet). Nearly all of the lakes in this area have inlet and outlet streams, some of which support sucker spawning runs in the spring months. Gravel sediments are characteristic spawning sites of suckers in these lakes and have been included in the discussion where they occur. Information is not available on toxic materials and tainting of fish in this region. Industrial and chemical pollution is generally considered light in this area of the state and probably presents no major problem to a fishery. 19 .ouam oumafixoueam .N .umo>um: Howouoaaou o co madmausmumosm mum mos umnu mowuoem nonuo mouoswumon I .um .H «.mm. _ m.a~ H.oH o.mm douou mo N kam.~m cos.s ems.m Hmm.mm a-.am menace x ooo.m ooo.m coamnH ammuuaoonum «a x omm cmm uo>waa=o unusuaoonom ma x aco.s Hoo.q asaaumaamz .m annexes: NH x OMH.OH oma.oH osowumwsmz annexes: HH x .um om~.q cm~.e uuoo>oum annexed: ca x can .um can owsoaamxmsz. mung m x ooc.H coo.a maaeooam “macaw vegan mesa m x ooq.~ co<.~ aouummsnm couscous: h x omo.a omc.a who: muflon o x ooo.~ coo.a gamma peace camps =< ummaa m x .na one one mouse =< umwa< s x coo coo :uuom noun m x oca.a ocH.H communes nouH N x can cam nouuo :Ounwoom H Hounumz uooamsnooeH vmosaasm muoxoam mono< mama hucnou .oz oxma no ooze oofiuomm axon Hmauuosaou uoflmz . H cowwom now oxma mo omen mam moauoem Hmfiouoaaou sense an moxma mo sowunnwuumwn .w manna H 20 Otter Lake (Lake No. 1) Otter Lake is located in the northern part of Houghton County. Black bullhead are the major commercial species in this lake, but suckers are also present. In 1970 and 1977 state surveyes, bullhead provided 35.32 and 56.242 of the catch, averaging in size from 10.1 to 6.9 inches, res- pectively. In 1977 suckers and bullhead accounted for 78.73% of the catch. Otter Lake is 890 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 29 feet. The major portion of the lake has a gently sloping bottom and the sediments are composed primarily of sand and clay. Chicagon Lake (2) Chicagon Lake, Iron County, may provide a commercial supply of white suckers. State survey records from 1968 to 1971 show that suckers accounted for 41% to 852 by weight, of the catch with average sizes of 18.0 to 16.5 inches, respectively. Chicagon Lake is 1,100 surface acres in size with maximum depth of 115 feet. The central, deeper portion of the lake has a gently sloping bottom and three extensive areas of shallow water are located at the north, west and south ends of the lake. Wagner Creek flows into the lake at the southeast and while Chicagon Creek flows out at the north end. Perch Lake_(3) Perch Lake, Iron County, may provide a supply of suckers to a commer- cial fishery. State crews netted 1,600 pounds of suckers during the 1976 spawning season Perch Lake is 994 acres in size with a maximum depth of 14 feet. A small island is located in the central part of the lake. Wolf Creek, Kidney Creek and the Perch River are three streams associated with the lake. 21 Au Train Lake (4) Au Train Lake, Alger County, may primarily support a sucker fishery in the spring, but black bullhead are also considered underutilized. A 1972 state fishery survey showed that suckers, black bullhead and a few carp accounted for 64.74% of the catch. The average size for suckers was 18.3 inches and for black bullhead, it was 10.6 inches. Au Train Lake is 830 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 30 feet. Most of the lake is less than 20 feet deep. The Au Train River, Buck Bay Creek and Cole Creek flow into the lake at the south and southeastern shores. The Au Train River flows out of the lake at the north end. Survey crews have encountered occasional snags while fishing with seines. Au Train Power Basin (5) Au Train Power Basin, Alger County, is an impoundment of the Au Train River. Black bullhead are the primary commercial species in this impoundment, but suckers are also present. State surveys in 1975 and 1977 show that black bullhead and suckers together accounted for 54.412 and 64.642 of the catch. In 1975, the average size for bullhead was 11.0 inches while in 1978, it was 8.1 inches. For suckers the average sizes were 17.0 and 17.8 inches in 1975 and 1978 respectively. This impoundment is approximately 1,000 surface acres in size and is infested with old tree stumps. A contour map of the basin is not avail- able. Joes Creek, Johnson Creek, Slapneck Creek and the Au Train River are streams associated with this basin. Moss Lake (6) Moss Lake, Delta County, contains mostly bullhead, but suckers and carp are also present. These three species accounted for 59.66% of the 22 catch in a 1977 state survey. Bullhead averaged only 6.2 inches in length. This lake occasionally winterkills and the fish population is probably limited due to the extreme shallow nature of the lake. Moss Lake is 1,080 acres in size with a maximum depth of 5 feet. Apparently, there is a hole in the south-central area of the lake where state crews caught most of their fish, but this hole is not evident on the contour map. Several small creeks flow into the lake along the north- east shoreline. Bull Run Creek flows out of the lake at the southeast end. Sundstrom Lake (Dead River Storage Basin) (7) Sundstrom Lake, Marquette County, may primarily support a sucker fishery but black bullhead are also common. Suckers and bullhead com- prised 71.89% of the catch in a 1972 state survey. Suckers averaged 11.5 inches and bullheads averaged 6.0 inches in length. Sundstrom Lake is approximately 2,400 surface acres in size and water levels are usually at their lowest level in late August. A contour map of the lake is not available. The Dead River flows into the basin at the west end, and out at the east end. The Little Dead River flows into the ' basin at the southeast end. Various other small streams are associated with this impoundment. Blind Sucker Flooding_(8) Blind Sucker Flooding, Luce County, has a moderate supply of suckers available to a commercial fishery. A state survey in 1966 showed that 31.25%, by number, of the catch was white sucker, ranging in size from 6.0 to 23.0 inches. Blind Sucker Flooding is a 1,000 acre impoundment of the Blind Sucker River. A contour map of the basin is not available. The Dead Sucker River flows into the basin at the west end and the Blind Sucker River flows out at the northeast end. 23 Muskallonge Lake (9) Muskallonge Lake, Luce County, may provide a harvest of brown bull- head and white suckers. These two species accounted for 86.15% of the catch in a1977 state survey. The suckers had an average size of 19.2 inches while the bullhead averaged 8.6 inches. The bullhead were reported to be in poor condition. This lake is 786 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 20 feet. Most of the lake is less than 15 feet deep with extensive areas of bottom and submergent vegetation. A small, deeper area lacking vege- tation is located in the south-central area of the lake. A large por- tion of the south shoreline consists of gravel sediments. Trout Creek flows into the lake on the southwest side. Brevoort Lake (10) Brevoort Lake, Mackinac County, may provide a harvest of bullhead and suckers. In May and July, 1976, these two species accounted for 39.18% and 57.392 of the catch. Brown bullhead (predominant species of bullhead) averaged 11.3 and 10.6 inches, respectively. White suckers averaged 16.9 and 17.1 inches. Brevoort Lake is 4,230 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 30 feet. The largest portion of the lake is less than 20 feet deep. Large areas of rubble can be found along the north and southeast shore- lines of the lake. The Brevoort River and Silver Creek flow into a bay at the northwest and of the lake while the Cut River and Massey Creek flow in at the northeast end. The Brevoort River flows out of the lake at the south‘end. Manistique Lake (11) Manistique Lake, Mackinac County, may provide a commercial harvest of suckers. In two state surveys in April 1977, white sucker and redhorse 24 together accounted for 53.32% and 64.55%, by number, of the catch, ranging in size from 12.0 to 20.0 inches. This lake is 10,130.surface acres:in size with a maximum depth of 20 feet. Several small islands are found in the central portion of the lake. Gravel and rock.sediments are present around the islands and various locations along the entire shoreline. The Portage River, Helmer Creek and Mud Creek flow into the lake at the southeast and northeast ends. The Manistique River flows out of the lake at the west end. South Manistique Lakeg(12) South Manistique Lake, Mackinac County, may provide a harvest of suckers. In 1971 and 1975, white suckers and a few redhorse and bullhead accounted for 85.68% and 40.67%, by number, of the catch. This lake is 4,001 acres in size with a maximum depth of 29 feet. The largest portion of the lake is less than 20 feet deep, composed pri- marily of sand and muck sediments. One spawning bed is known to occur at the north shoreline of the largest bay, on the west side of the lake. The Shoepac River flows into the lake at the west end and Portage Creek is an outlet at the north end. Gulliver Lake (13) Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County, may supply a harvest of white suckers. In various surveys, suckers have accounted for 66.59% to 76.79% of the catch, averaging from 17.0 to 17.4 inches in length. Gulliver Lake is 836 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 28 feet. Gravel sediments occur along the entire northwest shoreline and part of the east shoreline. Major spawning beds are located in rubble sediments in the.east9centra1 part of the lake in about 10 feet of water. 25 Cents Creek provides an inlet at the north end of the lake while Gul- liver Lake Outlet is located at the south end. Indian Lake (14) Indian Lake, Schoolcraft County, may provide a commercial harvest of white suckers. In two state surveys white suckers accounted for 41.26% and 63.16%, by number, of the catch, ranging in size from 12.6 to 17.5 inches. A lesser number of redhorse were caught. Indian Lake is 8,000 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 15 feet. Extensive areas of submergent and emergent vegetation are located in the north section of the lake. Several small areas of boulders and gravel are located along the southwest and northeast shorelines, and the central area of the lake. The Indian River and several other creeks flow into the lake at the north, west and south ends. The Indian River pro- vides an outlet at the east end. Region II Region II has 63,868 surface acres of water that might supply a commercial fishery for underutilized species. Of these, 49,108 acres (76.9%) are natural lakes while the remaining 14,760 acres (23.1%) are impounded waters (Table 9). Most of the 26 lakes and impoundments in this region are less than 40 feet deep, and range in size from 500 surface acres to 20,044 surface acres. Based on an average estimated standing crop of 63 pounds per acre, these waters support a biomass of 4,023,684 pounds of rough fish. In addition to the above mentioned waters, one river may potentially provide a commercial harvest of carp. White sucker, bullhead and carp are the major commercial species in Region II. Suckers are the primary commercial species in 47.1% of the designated waters, bullhead are the primary species in 37.1% of the 26 x was was «mam assume an x omm.~ oom.~ coda: .um oosaoomom mm x ooe.m coo.m magmas: :oaaoomoa on x «so.o~ «so.c~ counwaom coaaoomom mm x «so «am moon ow: ovoumo mm x .um omm.a omm.H muaammma: monammmaz an x cam.a omm.H couum sm> oomoH on x oko.a cao.a amass oomoH AN x mmm nma msom moon oomoH mm x amm.H st.H econ cocoa oumoH em x ~e¢.a ~c¢.a moon oxooo oomoH on x o~¢.H oma.H mnumumumz auousmso mN x mmm mmo moon easememm msooa< «N x .um com com ouuosoumz ouom comm: mm x .um ooo.~ mooo.H amassed: ooumaomz mm x 0mm omh usoaoum owmmsoz Hm x ooo.~ .ta ooo.~ econ seem: ousmaoz om x mmh .ua mme mama amusemz as x oce.m ooe.m camps uHmH anemone as x mmm mmm Boom possum uoaam NH x «so ems opus: cmmsoamno as x .ua omm.H cmm.H econ was: am>mm acmaa< ma Honoumz unmanasoeaH sumo moosaanm .muoxosm mouo< oxma mussoo .oz uxma mo waxy moaoomm. . ll. 03mg Hmfiuuosaou memo: .HH seawou How mama mo ooze mom moaoonm Hmwuu05800 House he moxoa mo coausnwuumwn .a manna 27 .omwfisuwz mama ou Hoccmsu mawuooacou.nufi3 ome.£u=oauo>uu mosaouo .m .onam oumawxoune< .N .umu>uo£ Hmauuoaaou o On maaoauomumnsm mom has umzu mowuoam Honuo muumawamon I .um .H m.o~ H.m~ m.n~ H.5m a.n¢ HmuOu «0 N mos.as cea.sa mso.os maa.m~ oHH.om www.mo nausea x omN.H om~.H whomsmm msmavaz on x cma.s .tm owa.~ sows: :aSemHo mm x mam .um mam muouom cascade mm Housumz usoavcnoeaH Qumu moonaasm muoxusm mouu< oxma huesou .oz oxma mo mafia mowuomm oxoa Hmaouoaaou scam: A.e.uaoov .o magma 28 waters, and carp are the primary species in the remaining 16% of the designated waters (Tabel 9). Other rough fish found in this region of the state are redhorse, bowfin, channel catfish, quillback, garpike, ale- wife and freshwater drum. These species are usually found in much lower numbers than the three primary species. Few studies have been conducted for the accumulation of toxic mater- ials or off—flavor in fish.from this region of the state. Of the lakes included in this study, taint tests have been conducted on only Manistee Lake and Pere Marquette Lake. The most recent tests conducted on these lakes reveal no off-flavor present in the fish. An investigation to determine the presence of heavy metals in fish was conducted on the Titta- bawassee River, but not specifically on any of the designated impounded waters of this river (See Sanford Lake). Seven Mile Pond (15) Seven Mile Pond, Alpena County, is an impoundment at the confluence of the Thunder Bay River and Lower South Branch of the Thunder Bay River. Suckers and brown bullhead are the important rough fish in this lake accounting for 69.74% of the catch in 1976. Suckers averaged 16.1 inches in length and bullhead averaged 9.5 inches. This impoundment is 1,530 acres in size with a maximum.depth, just above the dam, of 30 feet Most of the lake is less than 10 feet deep with bottom sediments composed of sand and muck. Submergent vegetation, stumps and deadbeads occur throughout the lake. Munro Lake (16) Munro Lake, Cheboygan County, has an abundant bullhead and white sucker population. In 1962 and 1968 state surveys, these two species accounted for 79.32% and 52.04% of the catch. Black bullhead ranged in 29 size from 9.5 to 11.3 inches, brown bullhead from 5.5 to 7.8 inches and white sucker from 12.4 to 18.1 inches. Bowfin were also present in the catch. Munro Lake is 694 acres in size with a maximum depth of 15 feet. A large portion of the lake is less than 6 feet deep and the bottom has a gently sloping contour. Two small creeks are associated with the lake. This lake occasionally winterkills. French Farm Lake (17) French Farm Lake, Emmet County, may provide a moderate harvest of brown bullhead. In 1960 and 1968 state surveys, bullhead accounted for 31.68% and 75.1%, by number, of the catch. The fish ranged in size from 5.2 to 11.2 inches. French Farm Lake is an impoundment of French Farm Creek. It is 585 acres in size but only about 10% of the lake is greater than 5 feet deep. A series of springs are located at the north end of the lake and French Farm Creek flows out at the southwest end. Grand Lake (18) ‘ Grand Lake, Presque Isle County, may provide a supply of white suckers to a commercial fishery. A state survey in 1976 showed that 37.66%, by number, of the catch was white suckers. During a coarse fish removal project in the winter of 1945 to 1946, 6,645 suckers weighing 13,290 pounds-were harvested with. trap nets by commercial fish- ermen (Crowe 1946). Grand Lake is 5,660 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 25 feet. Several islands are scattered throughout the lake. Gravel sediments can be found in various locations along the entire shoreline of the lake, and around the islands. Several creeks flow into the lake I 30 in various locations, and Grand Lake Outlet is located at the north- west end of the lake. Hess Lake (19) Hess Lake, Newaygo County, has an abundant carp pOpulation, and a population of bullhead.' These two species accounted for 30.14% of the catch in a 1969 state survey. Bowfin and quillback were also present in the catch. Hess Lake is 755 acres in size with a maximum depth of 29 feet. The greatest portion of the lake is less than 10 feet deep. A public fishing site is located at the northwest end of the lake. HardyiPond4(20) Hardy Pond, Newaygo County, is an impoundment of the Muskegon River. Carp, white sucker and redhorse are the important rough fish in this lake. These three species accounted for 39.14% of the catch in a 1975 state survey. White suckers and redhorse averaged 16.3 inches in length, and carp averaged 10.5 inches in length. Channel catfish were present in the catch in small numbers. Hardy Pond is approximately 2,000 acres in size. A contour map of the lake is not available. Several small creeks flow into the pond along its northwest shore. Fremont Lake (21) Fremont Lake, Newaygo County, has a very productive carp popula- tion. Based on a small sample size, carp and white sucker accounted for 14.47%, by number, of the catch in a 1972 state survey. On the same day, the surveyors saw a large school of 1971 year-class carp along the shore- line of the lake. This lake was chemically treated in 1957 to determine the size of the carp population, but a report is not available. 31 Fremont Lake is 790 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 88 feet. The bottom contour is quite irregular in some places. Sev- eral small creeks flow into the lake at various locations. Brooks Creek flows out of the lake at the south end. Manistee Lake (22) Manistee Lake, Manistee County, may provide a commercial supply of carp and suckers. This lake is approximately 1,000 surface acres in size. Neither a contour map nor a state fishery catch record is avail- able for this lake. Manistee Lake has a history of receiving substantial amounts of industrial and municipal wastes (Grant 1977). From the mid-1960's through 1967, tainting of fish was evident in Manistee Lake. Complaints of off-flavored fish decreased in 1968, but in the fall of 1969, chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the south end of the lake were judged to have an off-flavored taste. Taint tests conducted in 1976 revealed no off-flavor in Manistee Lake fish (Lundgren 1976). Taint tests probably should be conducted on Manistee Lake fish before they are sold commercially. Pere Marquette Lake (23) Pere Marquette Lake, Mason County, is approximately 600 acres in size. This lake may provide a commercial harvest of carp and suckers. Neither a contour map nor a state fishery catch record is available for this lake. Taint tests conducted on northern pike (Esox lucius) and white suckers from Pere Marquette Lake showed no evidence of off-flavor (Lundgren 1976). 32 IAlgggafiPogdfiflBagfiield Pond - 24 Alcona Pond, Alcona County, is a 953 acre impoundment of the Au Sable River. This pond contains suckers, carp and a few bullhead which may be harvested commercially. State surveys in 1962 and 1972 showed that these species account for 73.41% and 36.45%, by number, of the catch. Average lengths of the fish in the 1972 survey are as follows: white sucker - 11.9 inches, redhorse - 25.8 inches, black bullhead - 11.8 inches, brown bullhead - 11.2 inches and carp - 13.3 inches. Bowfin were also present in the catch. Lake Margrethe (251 Lake Margrethe, Crawford County, may furnish a commercial harvest of white suckers. Two state surveys in 1971 show that suckers accounted for only 0.69% and 0.49%, by number, of the catch, and averaged only 13.5 inches in length. These figures probably do not reflect the true proportion of suckers in the fish population of the lake. Lake Margrethe is 1,920 acres in size with a maximum depth of 65 feet. Extensive areas of submergent vegetation occur in the two large bays at the north end of the lake. Portage Creek flows out of the lake at the northwest end. Cook Pond (26) Cook Pond, Iosco County, is an impoundment of the Au Sable River. This impoundment contains suckers, redhorse, a few carp and some bullhead. Suckers, redhorse and bullhead accounted for only 14.77%, by number, of the catch in a 1972 state survey. The average lengths for these fish are as follows: white sucker - 13.0 inches, redhorse - 19.1 inches, black bullhead - 12.7 inches, and brown bullhead - 10.8 inches. Bowfin were also present in the catch. 33 Cooke Pond is 1,942 surface acres in size. Heavy growths of rooted aquatic vegetation occur in the upper end of the impoundment. Netting efforts by state crews were hampered by limited shoal areas in the impound- ment. State crews also noted that strong currents were present in the area near the dam. Two small creeks flow into the impoundment on its north shoreline. Foote Pond (27) Foote Pond, Iosco County, is an impoundment of the Au Sable River. This impoundment contains suckers, redhorse, a few carp and some bull- head. These species accounted for 7.0% and 11.48%, by number of the catch in 1969 and 1970 state surveys. Bowfin were also present in the catch. Foot Pond is 1,824 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of about 14 feet. Snags have been noted to be a problem and limited shoal areas have hampered fishing efforts by state crews in the upper portion of the impoundment. The Au Sable River below Foote dam may provide a harvest of carp. Carp are known to aggregate below the dam in June (Schnicke, personal communication). Netting records are not available for this river. Loud Pond (28) Loud Pond, Iosco County, is a 937 acre impoundment of the Au Sable River. This impoundment contains suckers, redhorse, a few carp and some bullhead. Neither a contour map nor a state fishery record is avail- able for this impoundment. Barker Creek flows into the impoundment on its north shoreline. Tawas Lakeg§29l Tawas Lake, Iosco County, may provide a commercial harvest of carp. Yellow bullhead, black.bullhead, brown bullhead, bowfin, garpike and 34 alewife are other species of fish found in this lake. Carp and bullhead accounted for 20.17%, by number, of the catch in a 1962 state survey. Tawas Lake is 1,670 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 5 feet. Extensive areas of emergent vegetation occur throughout the lake. Silver Creek and Tuttle Creek enter the lake on its northeast shore and several other small creeks enter along the northwest shoreline. The Tawas River flows out of the lake at the southwest end. Van Etten Lake (30) Van Etten Lake, Iosco County, may be a source of carp, suckers and bullhead. These species accounted for 11.9%, by number, of the catch in a 1962 state survey. Suckers ranged in size from 10.0 to 20.0 inches, bullhead from 7.0 to 14.9 inches and carp from 15.0 to 20.0 inches. Freshwater drum and bowfin were also present in the catch. In a demonstration netting project in 1948, commercial fishermen harvested 661 suckers, 667 redhorse, 182 bullhead, 2,686 freshwater drum and 129 carp in 39 trap net lifts from Van Etten Lake (Table 16; Crowe 1949). Van Etten Lake is 1,320 acres in size with a maximum depth of 33 feet. Most of the lake is from 15 to 25 feet deep. The Pine River and several other creeks flow into the lake in various places while Van Etten Creek flows out of the lake at the south end. Missaukee Lake (31) Missaukee Lake, Missaukee County, contains suckers, yellow bullhead and brown bullhead. In 1975 and 1976 state surveys, these three species accounted for 27.29% and 26.30% of the catch. Missaukee Lake is 1,880 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 27 feet. A large portion of the lake is less than 10 feet deep with extensive areas of submergent vegetation. Gravel sediments can be 35 located along the island at the north end of the lake, and along the east shoreline. Mio Pond (32) Mio Pond, Oscoda County, is a 944 acre impoundment of the Au Sable River. This lake contains a large population of white sucker, a few carp and some bullhead. A 1970 state survey showed that these three species accounted for 52.32%, by number, of the catch. In the same sur- vey, many additional suckers were shocked but not picked up. The average sizes of these fish are as follows: white sucker - 16.1 inches, brown bullhead - 10.4 inches and carp - 24.7 inches. Bowfin were also present in the catch. Chemical reclamation was proposed for this pond in the spring of 1977. Houghton Lake (33) Houghton Lake, Roscommon County, may provide a harvest of bullhead. Brown bullhead accounted for 33.2% of the catch in a 1972 state survey, and averaged 10.5 inches in length. White sucker, carp, bowfin and longnose gar were also present in the catch. Houghton Lake is 20,044 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 21 feet. The bottom contour is quite irregular. Denton Creek, Spring Brook Creek and Knappen Creep flow into the lake at the southeast end. Backers Creek flows in on the east shoreline and the Muskegon River flows out at the northwest end of the lake; Higgins Lake (34) Higgins Lake, Roscommon County, may provide a harvest of white suckers. Survey records from.1938 to 1954 (Laarman 1976), indicate the presence of white suckers in the lake, but more detailed surveys are not available. 36 Higgins Lake is 9,660 acres in size with a maximum depth of 135 feet. Flynns Island and a sunken island can be located in the west arm of the lake, and another sunken island can be located in the east arm. Gravel sediments occur around all of the islands and various locations around the lake shoreline. Known Spawning beds occur on the south shore of the west arm, and around Flynns Island. The Cut River flows out of the lake at the south end of the east arm. Lake St. Helen (35) Lake St. Helen, Roscommon County, may provide a commercial harvest of bullhead. White suckers and carp are also present in the lake. These three species accounted for 43.21% of the catch in a 1976 state survey. The average sizes for these fish are as follows: bullhead - 8.9 inches, white sucker - 18.3 inches, and carp - 20.5 inches. This lake is 2,390 acres in size with a maximum depth of 25 feet. Most of the lake is from 5 to 10 feet deep. Cameron Creek and Russell Creek flow into the lake at the west end, while the South Branch of the Au Sable River flows out at the northeast end. Sggg_Lake4(36) Sage Lake, Ogemaw County, may provide a harvest of carp and bullhead. These two species accounted for 33.37% of the catch in a 1965 state survey. Bowfin were also present in the catch. Sage Lake is 785 acres in size with a maximum depth of 80 feet. The bottom contour is quite uneven and several islands are located in the main section of the lake. Gravel sediments are found in a few places around the shoreline of the lake and the islands. The Au Gres Creek flows into the lake on the north shoreline, and the Au Gres River flows out of the lake at the southwest end. 37 Secord Lake (Secord Dam Backwater - 37) Secord Lake, Gladwin County, is an impoundment of the Tittabawassee River. Carp and suckers are the important rough fish in this lake, but bullhead and channel catfish are also present. Two state surveys in 1967 showed that these species accounted for 5.44% to 9.7%, by number, of the catch. These figures probably do not represent the true proportion of these species in the fish population. Carp ranged in size from 20.7 to 25.5 inches, white sucker from 12.8 to 20.0 inches, bullhead from 7.9 to 11.4 inches and one channel catfish was 10.4 inches in length. This impoundment is 815 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 40 feet. Gravel sediments can be located in the main section of the lake, just above the dam. The dam impounds two sections of the Tittabawassee River and several other small streams. Wixom Lake (38) Wixom Lake, Gladwin County, is an impoundment of the Tittabawassee River. This lake contains primarily carp and suckers, but bullhead and channel catfish are also present. These species accounted for 21.19%, by number, of the catch in a 1967 state survey. Suckers ranged in size from 12.4 to 23.7 inches, bullhead from 6.4 to 12.3 inches, channel catfish from 9.9 to 12.2 inches and carp from 15.9 to 22.4 inches. Wixom Lake is 1,980 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 40 feet. Several streams and bays are associated with this lake. Sanford Lake (39) Sanford Lake, Midland County, is an impoundment of the Tittaba- wassee River. This impoundment contains primarily carp, but bullhead and channel catfish are also present. These species accounted for 13.89%, by number, of the catch in a 1967 state survey. Carp ranged in size 38 from 9.7 to 21.1 inches, channel catfish from 5.3 to 19.2 inches and brown bullhead from 5.2 to 7.6 inches. Sanford Lake is 1,250 acres in size with a maximum depth of 20 feet. An area with gravel sediments is located about midway up the impoundment from the dam. Varity Creek and Black Creek flow into the lake on its western shoreline. Toxic material surveys have not been conducted on any of the impound- ments of the Tittabawassee River. However, one study of toxic materials in fish flesh was conducted in Midland County, just above and below the city of Midland (downstream from all of the designated impoundments). Results showed that no fish samples exceeded the heavy metals limits set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or by Canadian officials (Hesse and Evans 1972; Appendix B). The fish were analyzed for cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, chromium, arsenic, cepper, and zinc. These results may provide some indication of the environmental conditions in the Tittaba- wassee River, but bear no direct evidence on any of the designated impoundments. Region III Region III has 15,549 surface acres of water that might provide a commercial harvest of underutilized fish species. Of these, 5,558 acres (35.7%) are impOunded waters and 9,991 acres (64.3%) are natural inland lakes (Table 10). Several of these lakes are drowned rivermouth lakes which have connecting channels to Lake Michigan and may support spawning runs of suckers in addition to the resident rough fish popu- lation. The individual bodies of water range in size from 154 surface acres to 4,150 surface acres, and in depth from 16 to 70 feet. Several of the larger rivers in this region of the state may also support poten- tial sources of underutilized fish. Based on an average estimated .oowanofiz mama so Hosanna wcfiuooscoo Lugs mama ausoauo>wu cocoon: .m 39 .muam oumafixouna< .N .umo>um: Howouoafioo m ou mHHmwucoumnsm one has umnu mofiooam Macao moumcmfimon I .um .H m.homom hmsoaaom oomoaou no x 2:4 .5 moms; 2.3832 2.33 .3 x coo. N as m . No8 . N 323 83.3.5 3 x o2 . s . S moms . q 8338: commas: S x com com nmwmoufinz aaoouooz co Housuoz usoaossoaaH aumo omegaasm muoxoam mouo< oxoa huasou .02 oon mo mmNH‘ mowommm mama Howouoeaoo nemmx .HHHH sowwox How oxma mo ma>u can moqooam Hmfiouoaaoo scams >n moxofl mo coauonwuuman .oH manna 40 standing crop of 162 pounds per acre, these waters support a biomass of I2,518,938 pounds of rough fish. Carp and suckers are the primary commercial species in 89.8% of the designated waters in this region of the state (Table 10). White suckers are the most abundant type of sucker in this region but redhorse, long- nose suckers, spotted suckers and northern hog suckers are also present in smaller numbers. A combination of yellow bullhead, black bullhead and brown bullhead are the primary species in the remaining 10.2% of the designated waters in this region. Other underutilized species of fish found in this region are as follows: freshwater drum, bowfin, quillback. longnose gar, shortnose gar, goldfish, gizzard shad and alewife. Tainting problems are evident in Mona Lake, Ford Lake, Belleville Lake and the Grand River below large municipalities. Polychlorinated biphenyl contamination is evident in fish from Morrow Pond, an impound— ment of the Kalamazoo River. Certain areas of the River Raisin contain fish with high levels of heavy metals in their flesh. The evident contamination problems found in these lakes and rivers indicate that similar chemical problems may occur in other lakes, and expecially river impoundments, in Region III. River impoundments account for 35.7% of the commercially fishable waters in this region. Chemical contamination could reduce this figure substantially. Before commercial fisheries are established in impoundments in Region III, tests should be conducted to determine if contaminants are present in the fish. Impound- ments that account for a major portion of the commercial waters in Region III are as follows: Impoundments of the St. Joseph River - Mud Hole, Sturgis Impoundment and Union Lake; Impoundments of the Huron River - Flat Rock Impoundment, Ford Lake, Kent Lake and Belleville Lake; Stony 41 Greek Impoundment; and Thornapple Lake, an impoundment of the Thorn- apple River. Holloway Reservoir, an impoundment of the Flint River, is surrounded by a buffer zone from any large municipality and probably does not have serious contaminant problems. Whitefish Lake (40) Whitefish Lake, Montcalm County, may provide a commercial harvest of yellow bullhead. In a 1971 state survey yellow bullhead accounted for 37.94%, by number, of the catch, averaging 11.0 inches in length. Whitefish Lake is 500 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 54 feet. The bottom contour is uneven except for the deeper, central portion of the lake. Two streams flow into the lake at the southeast and southwest ends. One stream flows out at the north end of the lake. Mona Lake (41) Mona Lake, Muskegon County, may provide a harvest of carp and suck- ers. Bullhead and channel catfish are also present in the lake. These four species accounted for 13.58%, by number, of the catch in a 1977 state survey. Suckers ranged in size from 10.6 to 24.5 inches, carp from 11.5 to 31.6 inches, bullhead from 5.2 to 12.6 inches, and channel catfish from 9.5 to 23.2 inches in length. Freshwater drum, bowfin, quillback, longnose gar, goldfish and gizzard shad were also present in the catch. Mona Lake is 695 acres in size with a maximum depth of 42 feet. The central portion of the lake has a gently sloping bottom contour. Black Creek and Little Black Creek enter the lake at the northeast end. An outlet to Lake Michigan is located at the west end of Mona Lake. Severe tainting of white sucker, carp, channel catfish and northern pike is evident in Mona Lake (Lundgren 1976). Severely contaminated lake 42 sediments and presently occurring municipal and industrial contaminants from Black Creek and Little Black Creek are suspected as the cause of this tainting. Until this problem is resolved, a fishery in this lake may not be worthwhile, unless the off-flavor can be cleansed from the fish in holding ponds. Information on toxic materials is not available for this lake, but tests probably should be conducted before a fishery is established, in view of the evident chemical contamination. Muskegon Lake (42) Muskegon Lake, Muskegon County, contains primarily carp and suckers, but bullhead are also present in small numbers. In 1967 and 1975 state surveys, these three species accounted for 29.78% and 14.03%, by number, of the catch. Average sizes for the fish in the 1975 survey are as fol- lows: white sucker - 15.1 inches, redhorse - 16.2 inches, carp - 24.2 inches, and brown bullhead - 9.6 inches. Bowfin, gizzard shad, freshwater drum, quillback, longnose gar, goldfish and alewife were also present in the catch. Muskegon Lake is 4,150 acres in size with a maximum depth of 70 feet. Several channels of the Muskegon River flow into the lake at the northeast end and a channel to Lake Michigan is located at the west end. Taint tests conducted on white sucker, redhorse and northern pike showed no evidence of reduced fish palatability in Muskegon Lake (Lund- gren 1976). White Lake (43) White Lake, Muskegon County, contains primarily carp and suckers but bullhead are also present in small numbers. These three species accounted for 14.46%, by number, of the catch in a 1965 state survey. White suckers 43 ranged in length from 11.0 to 20.0 inches, redhorse from 10.5 to 25.0 inches, carp from 30.0 to 35.5 inches and bullhead from 9.0 to 13.5 inches. Catfish, freshwater drum, bowfin, longnose gar, gizzard shad and alewife were also present in the catch. White Lake is about 2,000 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 70 feet. The White River flows into the lake at the northeast end, and an outlet to Lake Michigan is located at the west end. Taint tests conducted on white suckers captured off Long Point in White Lake were judged to be of low palatability (Lundgren 1976). How- ever, carp, white sucker, northern pike, smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and largemouth bass (Micrqpterus salmoides) from other areas of the lake did not show the presence of off-flavor. No specific reason is known for the presence of off-flavor in suckers captured off Long Point, but additional tests probably should be conducted before a fishery is established. Information on toxic materials is not available for this lake, how- ever, public concern of contamination has arisen because of recent dis— charges by chemical companies located on White Lake. The Michigan Depart- ment of Natural Resources should be contacted for more recent information on this matter. Lake Macatawa (44) Lake Macatawa, Ottawa County, may supply carp, suckers and some bullhead to a commercial fishery. These species accounted for 44.5%, by number, of the catch in a 1976 state survey. Average lengths for the fish in this survey are as follows: white sucker - 16.6 inches, redhorse - 18.1 inches, carp - 20.5 inches, yellow bullhead - 9.3 inches, black bull- head - 8.1 inches, and brown bullhead - 9.4 inches. Catfish, freshwater 44 drum, quillback, bowfin, gar pike, goldfish and gizzard shad were also present in the catch. In June 1974, the large 200 acre marsh at the mouth of the Black (Macatawa) River was treated with chemicals to remove the spawning popu- lation of carp. As a result of the treatment, 600,000 pounds (300 pounds per acre) of carp were removed from the lake. The average size carp was 18.9 inches in length and weighed 4.8 pounds. In addition to carp, 14,500 pounds of gizzard shad, 9,214 pounds of alewives, 280 pounds of suckers, 125 pounds of bullhead, 375 pounds of bowfin, and a few fresh- water drum and longnose gar were also removed. Lake Macatawa has a history of commercial fishing and large numbers of carp have been removed from the lake. The average catch per seine haul has ranged from 1,315 pounds in 1938 to 9,524 pounds in 1939 (Tab- le 11). Some of these were winter operations where seining hauls were conducted under the ice. Lake Macatawa is 1,780 acres in size with a maximum depth of 40 feet. The eastern section of the lake has a fairly uniform depth but the western section has an irregular bottom contour. Pine Creek and the Black River flow into the lake on its north and northeast ends. An outlet to Lake Michigan is located at the west end of the lake. Several areas of Lake Macatawa are known to have aggregations of carp during the winter months. The best known areas are where warm water discharges are located. Holloway Reservoir (45) Holloway Reservoir, Genesee County, is an impoundment of the Flint River. Carp are the important rough fish in this reservoir but bullhead, channel catfish and white sucker are also present. These species accounted for 68.31% of the catch in a 1976 state survey. Average lengths of the 45 .souo Houmsnmoum «0 amazon nm¢.a moan .N .ooaumUfioanoo Hmsomuom .uowumoawue .H mm smm me was on son ae¢.a om~.mH ma Nssfl mm «as a was NNH mae.~ oao.m mmm.mm as asaa «so cam.“ so sam.a an mam m-.s oam.ho as osaa new Hmo.m~ amm asa.m mas ass.s «Nm.¢ Haa.mm~ mN amoa soa.a msH.~H «so mm~.o me was mam.a has.sa HA mmoa mam sh~.m com scaled cow ooa.q mms.H soo.mm so “mad coo hae.~ mNH.~ mmo.- «a ohm mam.m mho.mq ma ammo o0 smm.a Hoe.~ ssm.mm one mas.m sm¢.~ ~o~.ms NN mama «so mo¢.m mm ~am.a o NMH Noa.o mmm.~m ma mNsH an ask on «mo.a mm has ano.o oo~.-H AN “Naa Home you amazon Ham: non mosoon Home non. mosooa Homoiwom .mmosoa mason moosoa .oz amazon .02 amazon .oz mocooa .02 mo How» .02 ommuo>< Hmuoe .oz mwmum>< Hmuoe .oz wmmww>< Hmuoe .oz owmum>¢ Hmuos .oz swam omumoo swam memo Hosuo ammo . Neossamsa .msmumomz mama so wasnmam mono .HH «Home 46 fish in this survey are as follows: carp - 13.6 inches, white sucker - 15.3 inches, bullhead - 8.0 inches, and channel catfish - 14.9 inches. Bowfin were also present in the catch. The upper portion (650 acres) of this reservoir was chemically treated in 1976 to eradicate the dominant carp population. An estimated 160,000 pounds (346 pounds per acre) of carp were removed in this treat- ment. In a pre-treatment survey, 126 carp had an average weight of 1.07 pounds each. Holloway Reservoir is 1,973 acres in size. The upper portion of the reservoir (above Mt. Morris Road) is 650 acres in size and contains a predominant carp population.' This portion of the reservoir is shallow and contains many stumps. The lower portion of the reservoir is deeper and contains a larger proportion of game fish. Water levels in this reservoir have been lowered to assist in chemical treatment operations. This technique may be helpful to netting operations by commercial fish- ermen. Holloway Reservoir is surrounded by a green belt and receives very little municipal or industrial waste. Accumulation of toxic materials and tainting in fish flesh are not likely to be problems in this reser- voir (Shepherd, personal communication). Thornapple Lake (46) Thornapple Lake, Barry County, contains primarily suckers, but bullhead and carp are also present. These species accounted for 77:78% of the catch in a 1966 state electrofishing survey. Thornapple Lake is 409 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 31 feet. The central portion of the lake has a fairly uniform depth of 20 to 30 feet. High Bank Creek, Mud Creek and the Thornapple River 47 flow into the lake on its eastern end. The Thornapple River flows out of the lake at the west end. Indian Lake (47) Indian Lake, Cass County, may provide a commercial harvest of carp. Carp and bullhead accounted for only 4.34%, by number, of the catch in a 1964 state survey. This figure probably does not represent the true pro- portion of carp in the fish population. In the same survey, chemical reclamation was recommended to eradicate the large carp population. The average lengths of carp and bullhead were 22.0 inches and 8.0 inches, res- pectively. Shortnose gar were also present in the catch. Indian Lake is 480 surface acres in size. A contour map of the lake is not available. One stream flows out of the lake and into the Dowagiac River. Morrow Pond)(48) Morrow Pond, Kalamazoo County, is about a 1,000 acre impoundment of the Kalamazoo River. Carp and suckers are the dominant rough fish in this pond, but bullhead and channel catfish are also present. State surveys in 1969 and 1973 showed that these species accounted for 54.0% and 70.86% of the catch. Bowfin and longnose gar were also present in the catch. A contour map of the pond is not available. Morrow Pond is one of the areas on the Kalamazoo River that is considered to have a good fish population. Taint tests were conducted on carp, white sucker, smallmouth bass and black crappie (Pomoxis gigromaculatus) from this pond in 1971. Consistently high flavor ratings were given for all of these species (Schrouder 1972). Concentrations of mercury, chromium, nickel, lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, and arsenic in fish flesh.were below tolerance limits set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Canadian officials (Hesse and Evans 1972; Appendix B). 48 Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination of fish is evident in the Kalamazoo River basin. Carp and suckers from Morrow Pond exceeded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's tolerance limit of 5 mg/kg in fish tissues (Hesse and Willson 1972; Appendix C). The cities of Battle Creek and Kalamazoo are believed to be the probable sources of contamination. Fish from Morrow Pond will probably not be marketable until contamina- tion by PCB's is lowered to within the U.S.F.D.A.'s tolerance limits. Mud Hole (49) The Mud Hole, St. Joseph County, is a 500 acre impoundment of the St. Joseph River. Carp and suckers are the important rough fish in this impoundment. These two species accounted for 18.32%, by number, of the catch in a 1975 state survey. Average lengths of fish collected in this survey are as follows: white sucker - 11.8 inches, redhorse - 20.5 inches, spotted sucker - 14.5 inches, and carp - 16.9 inches. Longnose gar were also present in the catch. A contour map of this impoundment is not available. Stumps and turbidity have hindered netting efforts by state crews in the past. Information on toxic materials and tainting in fish is not avail- able for this river. Tests probably should be conducted to determine if there are problems of this nature before any fishery is established. Sturjis Impoundment (SQ) Sturgis Impoundment, St. Joseph.County, is about a 500 acre impound- ment of the St. Joseph.River. Carp and suckers are the predominant rough fish in this impoundment, but bullhead and channel catfish are also present. These species accounted for 75.24% of the catch in a 1975 state netting survey. Average lengths of fish caught in this survey are as follows: white sucker - 14.9 inches, redhorse - 18.8 inches, spotted 49 sucker - 14.5 inches, carp - 15.7 inches, bullhead - 9.8 inches and channel catfish - 11.8 inches. A contour map of the impoundment is not available. State crews have had difficulty in locating suitable netting sites in this impound- ment, probably because of stumps. 1 Information on toxic materials and tainting in fish is not available for the St. Joseph River at the present time. Tests probably should be conducted to determine if there are chemical problems before any fishery is established. Marble Lake (51) Marble Lake, Branch County, may provide a commercial harvest of bull- head. Suckers and carp are present in small numbers. Two surveys in 1970 show that these species accounted for 16.25% and 42.22%, by number, of the catch. Bullhead and white suckers averaged 10.7 inches and 22.2 inches in length, respectively. Marble Lake is 780 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 60 feet. The bottom contour is quite uneven. Gravel sediments can be located in various places around the shoreline of the lake, especially along the southeast shoreline. Several streams flow into the lake around its perimeter, and the Goldwater River flows out of the lake at the northwest end. Union Lake (52) . Union Lake, Branch County, is an impoundment of the St. Joseph River. Carp and suckers are the primary commercial species in the impoundment, but bullhead are also present in small numbers. These species accounted for 60.62% and 77.46% of the catch in two 1972 state surveys. Bowfin were also present in the catch. 50 Union Lake is 525 acres in size with a maximum depth of 16 feet. Gravel sediments can be found in the old riverbed which is located adja- cent to the northwest shoreline of the lake. The upper portion of the reservoir is shallow and contains many stumps. Most of the lower part of the impoundment is greater than 5 feet deep. Grand River (53) About 57 miles of the Grand River in Eaton, Jackson and Ingham Counties may provide a commercial harvest of carp. Suckers and bullhead are also present in the river. State surveys in Jackson and Eaton Coun- ties in 1970 showed that these species accounted for 88.13% and 84.20%, by number, of the catch. Carp ranged in size from 8.0 to 21.0 inches, suckers from 6.0 to 19.0 inches, and bullhead from 4.0 to 12.0 inches. Bowfin and goldfish were also present in the catch. A chemical treat- ment has been proposed for the Grand River from Jackson to Grand Ledge to remove the large carp population. Thirty-two fish samples were collected in 1970 to test for the accumulation of heavy metals in Grand River fish from Jackson to Lake Michigan. Carp, suckers, bullhead and bass were used to test for the accumulation of copper, nickel, zinc, chromium, cadmium, and mercury. ane of the samples exceeded tolerance limits established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or Canadian officials (Hesse and Evans 1972; Appendix B). Tests were also conducted for the accumulation of DDT, dieldrin and polychlorinated biphenyls on the sample of 32 fish. Although there was an absence of critical contamination, the highest levels of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish were generally located below the metropolitan areas of Jackson, Lansing and Grand Rapids (Willson and Hesse 1973; Appendix C). 51 In 1971, taint tests were conducted on northern pike, carp, white suckers, and catfish captured from the Grand River in and around large metropolitan areas. Results showed that the metropolitan areas of Jack- son, Lansing and Grand Rapids have adversely affected the palatability of resident fish species in the Grand River within and below these popula- tion centers (Willson 1973). Until the problem can be resolved, a fish- ery in the Grand River may not be worthwhile, unless the off-flavor can be cleansed from the fish in holding ponds. River Raisin (54) The entire River Raisin is a potential commercial source of carp. Some bullhead and suckers are also present in this stream. State surveys in Lenawee and Monroe counties in 1971 showed that these species accounted for 76.5% and 89.81% of the catch. Carp ranged in size from 4.0 to 25.0 inches, suckers from 3.0 to 23.0 inches and bullhead from 5.0 to 10.0 inches. In 1971, carp, bullhead, crappie, northern pike, rock bass ($22127 plites rupestris), largemouth bass and smallmouth bass were tested for the accumulation of zinc, copper,nickel, lead, mercury, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic. 0f the 25 samples tested, 2 samples had concentrations of mercury that either equalled or exceeded the .5 ppm tolerance limit esta- blished by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Hesse and Evans 1972; Appendix B).. These two samples were taken in the following locations: Lenawee County below Blissfield (T68, R5E, $29), and Monroe County at highway M950 (Dundee) (T68, R7E, S9). Information on tainting, hydrocarbon pesticides or polychlorinated biphenyls is not available at the present time for the Raisin River. 52 Flat Rock Impoundment (55) Flat Rock Impoundment, Wayne County, is an impoundment of the Huron River. Carp are the primary rough fish in this impoundment but buffalo, white sucker, channel catfish, gizzard shad and goldfish are also present. Flat Rock Impoundment and 15 miles of the Huron River were chemically treated in 1974 to remove the rough fish population. Removal estimates are as follows: carp — 320 pounds per acre, white sucker - 60 pounds per acre, buffalo - 4 pounds per acre, channel catfish - 4 pounds per acre, gizzard shad - 32 pounds per acre and goldfish - 12 pounds per acre. Carp, suckers and channel catfish accounted for a total of 334 pounds per acre. Flat Rock Impoundment is 154 surface acres in size. Submergent vegetation and deadheads are scattered throughout the impoundment. An additional 27 miles of the Huron River, above and below the impoundment, may support a commercial fishery. Ford Lake (56) Ford Lake, Washtenaw County, is an impoundment of the Huron River. Carp are the primary rough.fish in this lake, but bullhead, white sucker and channel catfish.are also present. This impoundment was chemically treated in 1973 to remove the predominant carp population. Removal esti- mates are as follows: carp - 751.2 pounds per acre, white sucker - 3.3 poundsrper acre, bullhead - 5.0 pounds per acre, a total of 759.5 pounds per acre. A state survey in 1975 showed that white sucker, yellow bull- head and channel catfish accounted for 23.46% of the catch. Carp are still present in the population and accounted for 59.51% of the catch in September, 1973 (four months after the chemical treatment). Ford Lake is 975 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of ahout 30 feet. Gravel sediments can be located in the immediate area 53 of the dam, around the island, and various other places around the shore- line of the lake. Tainting problems are evident in fish from Ford Lake (Lundgren 1978). Tainting was evident in fish from the following sections of Ford Lake: upper section - walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), largemouth bass and white suckers; middle section - walleye; lower section - largemouth bass. Ford Lake will be considered a potential source of rough fish for the future. It will not be considered a potential source at the present time. Stony Creek Impoundment (57) Stony Creek Impoundment, Macomb County, has a substantial population of carp, suckers and bullhead. These species accounted for 60.83% and 80.87%, by number, of the catch in 1969 and 1968 state surveys. Average sizes of the fish caught in the 1968 survey are as follows: white sucker - 14.1 inches, redhorse - 15.5 inches, carp - 20.0 inches, and brown bull- head - 8.4 inches. Stony Creek Impoundment is 497 acres in size with a maximum depth of 23 feet. The bottom sediments are composed of gravel, sand, organic and clay materials interspersed throughout the impoundment. Four creeks enter the lake along the north shoreline and Stony Creek flows out at the southern end. An access site is located near the dam on the southern end of the lake. Kent Lake (58) Kent Lake, Oakland County, is an impoundment of the Huron River. This impoundment has an abundant carp population. Some suckers and bull- head are also present in the lake. A state survey in 1976 showed that these species accounted for 19.73%, by number, of the catch. Carp only accounted for 3.89%, by number, of the catch. This figure probably does 54 not represent the true proportion of carp in the fish population. Average sizes of fish in this catch are as follows: carp - 19.0 inches, white sucker - 17.0 inches, yellow bullhead - 9.5 inches, and brown bull— head - 7.5 inches. Bowfin were also present in the catch. Kent Lake is 1,000 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 38 feet. Most of the impoundment is less than 10 feet deep. A boat launch- ing ramp is located on the southeast end of the lake. A sewage treat- ment plant is located on the southeast end of the lake and might be a potential source of contaminants. Tipsico Lake (59) Tipsico Lake, Oakland County, may provide a commercial harvest of yellow bullhead. In a 1976 state survey, yellow bullhead accounted for 90.66%, by number, of the catch and averaged 7.0 inches in length. Bowfin were also present in the catch. Tipsico Lake is 301 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of 27 feet. The major portion of the lake has a gently sloping bottom contour. One stream flows out of the lake and one stream enters the lake on the north end. A large marsh area is located at the south end of the lake where another stream enters. Belleville Lake (60) Belleville Lake, Wayne County, is an impoundment of the Huron River. Carp are the primary rough fish in this lake but suckers, bullhead and channel catfish are also present. In 1973, this impoundment was chemically treated to remove the predominant carp population. Approximately one million pounds of fish were killed. An estimated 760 pounds per acre of carp and 24 pounds per acre of suckers were removed from the lake. Some bullhead and channel catfish were also killed. Up to the present time, 55 carp have not reached the high.numbers that were present in this impound- ment in 1973, but the population is rebuilding itself and a partial chemr ical treatment is expected in about 1982 (Spitler, personal communication). A state survey in 1976 showed that carp, white sucker, channel cat- fish and bullhead accounted for 16.51%, by number, of the catch. Aver— age sizes of the fish.in this catch are as follows: carp - 20.2 inches, white sucker — 14.2 inches, bullhead - 8.5 inches, and channel catfish - 14.5 inches. Belleville Lake is 1,270 surface acres in size with a maximum depth of about 20 feet. Gravel sediments can be located in various places along the shoreline of the lake, and along the entire old river channel. Several small creeks flow into the lake along its north shoreline. Tainting problems are evident in fish from Belleville Lake (Lundgren 1978). Tainting was evident in fish from the following locations: mid- dle section - walleye and largemouth bass, lower section - white sucker. Belleville Lake will be considered a potential source of rough fish for the future. It will not be considered a potential source at the present time. All Regions A total of 116,694 surface acres of inland waters supporting an estimated 7,996,425 pounds of rough fish may be available for commercial harvest in Michigan (Table 12). Natural lakes account for 78.8% of these waters while the remaining 21.2% are impounded waters. The white sucker is the predominant commercial species in 54.9% of the total waters listed, most of which are located in Region I and Region II. Bullhead are the primary commercial species in 24.9% of the designated waters. Houghton Lake (20,044 acres) accounts for the largest portion 56 of the bullhead waters and is located in Region II. The carp is the pri- mary commercial species in 20.2% of the waters in Regions II and III. In addition to the waters listed above, four lakes (3,940 acres) and two rivers (Raisin and Grand) located in Region 111, should be con- sidered as potential future sources of underutilized fish (unavailable at the present time because of contaminant problems). 57 .umuma mo mouom uommouaou mouowwm .H m.ma ~.H~ ~.o~ o.s~ s.sm Hence «o N mms.oso.s sac.osa oaa.am msa.s~ soo.mm omo.s~ oso.so Hosea mmm.mam.~ Noe mam.mm Hom.m mmm.m smm.ma Ham.a mos HHH «mo.m~o.s mo www.mo mos.ss oes.sa mso.oH mas.m~ oHH.cM HH mom.mms.a mm ~s~.am sam.~m cos.s . oma.m me.mm H Amocsomv swam swoon a a mmmBOfin mo muom HmMSumz ucmaocso aw you omosaasm mumxosm Hmuou pom mosses mmuom amuse mxma mo mmfiommm Hmfiouoasoo :Ofiwmm emomasomm saunasumm amass Huofimz .mcowmmu smwfinofiz mounu Ham How oxma mo mahu mam mmwoomm Hmaoumaaoo scams an mmxma mo coauonauumwo mom .mmmaoan :mwm mouaaausnmooo HmuOu mo mommaaumm .NH mHAme METHODS OF HARVEST USED IN INLAND LAKES A variety of methods are available for the capture of underutilized fish in inland lakes. Impounding gears, which retain captured fish alive, are the preferred methods for inland lake fisheries. Live capture methods allow the separation of commercial species from game species, which can be returned to the water with minimum damage. This is an important consideration in managing Michigan lakes where recreational fisheries are emphasized. Gillnetting has been used for the commercial harvest of rough fish in some instances (Jester 1976; Johnsen and Hasler 1977). The fishery manager may choose to use gillnetting as a harvest technique where the danger to game fish is considered to be small. Seines Seining probably has been the most widely used method employed in capturing carp. A variety of lengths, depths and mesh sizes have been used in various seine operations. In Wisconsin, where considerable effort has been employed in carp fishing, seining is considered the most effective method of carp control Oniller 1952). Seines are considered efficient because of their mobility. They can be transported to large carp concentrations where an entire school can be captured in one haul. Wisconsin seines are typically suspended nets with manila rope as the bottom line. This type of net allows easy passage of the bottom line over aquatic vegetation. Wisconsin fishermen have used seines ranging from 200 feet to over 1 mile in length, and from 6 to 50 feet in depth. Mesh size usually ranges from 2 1/2 to 5 1/2 inch stretch measure. A carp 8.1 inches in length and 0.3 pounds in weight can be captured with 2 1/2 inch mesh (Table 13). 58 59 Table 13. Age, weight and length of young carp caught in various sizes of mesh in Wisconsinl. Mesh2 Length weight Age limit (inches) (inches) (pounds) (years) 5.5 16.5 2.4 3.0 4.5 14.1 1.6 3.0 4.0 12.5 1.1 3.0 3.5 10.6 0.7 2.0 3.0 9.0 0.4 2.0 2.5 8.1 0.3 2.0 1. Taken from Miller (1952). 2. Stretch measure. 60 The conditions for which the seine is used will partly determine the mesh size. The smaller the mesh the more resistance to pull by water and vegetation. Larger mesh sizes are usually used in river currents. Fish size and spawning periodicity may also determine mesh size. Miller (1952) states that a 3 1/2 inch mesh is usually used where a good catch of carp occurs every three years. This size mesh will capture carp 18 months and older. In 1,400-acre East Okoboji Lake, Iowa, seining was used as an effective method of rough fish removal (Rose and Moen 1953). In this study a 2,500 foot, 5 inch stretch mesh seine was used to remove rough fish from East Okoboji Lake from 1940 to 1951 (Table 14). Average catches per seine haul of buffalo, carp, and freshwater drum ranged from 1,608 pounds (1951) to 7,283 pounds (1940) in the 12-year period. Ricker and Gottschalk (1941) used seines in a coarse fish removal study at Bass Lake, Indiana. Two seines were employed: one was 1,000 feet long and 20 feet deep with 3 inch stretch mesh; the other was 800 feet long and 8 feet deep with 3 inch mesh. Ricker and Gottschalk (1941) concluded that the smaller seine was less costly and less difficult to use than the large seine. The smaller net could be pulled more times per day resulting in a larger number of fish caught (Table 15). Lake Macatawa, Ottawa County, Michigan, has an extensive history of carp seining Operations that began in 1927. Average catches per seine haul have ranged from 1,315 pounds (1938) to 9,524 pounds (1939) (Table 11). Other devices sometimes assist seining operations. Barges and winches are sometimes used for transporting and retrieving the large seines after they have been set (Peterson 1958; Ricker and Gottschalk 61 Table 14. Average catch (pounds) of rough fish per seine haul in East Okoboji Lake, 1940 - 1951 . Species Year Buffalo Carp Freshwater drum Total 1940 5,142 523 1,618 7,283 1941 3,964 469 352 4,785 1942 2,652 848 308 3,808 1943 2,412 653 267 3,332 1944 1,409 1,211 240 2,860 1945 847 1,409. 302 2,558 1946 2,959 1,180 245 4,384 1947 1,584 463 401 2,448 1948 1,001 1,811 973 2,115 1949 994 850 158 3,002 1950 36 1,116 372 2,024 1951‘ 167 927 514 1,608 1. Taken from Rose and Moen (1953). 62 Table 15. Mean number of rough fish caught, the standard deviation, and the average weight in pounds for each species of fish in the large and small seinel. Large Seine Small Seine S ecies Mean Average Mean Average 1’ No. 3.1). Wt. No. 5.1). Wt. Carp 28.1 31.1 8.5 38.8 41.7 6.5 Quillback 18.4 26.6 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.1 Buffalo 4.6 10.1 6.1 3.9 4.6 7.6 Gar Pike 1.2 - 2.2 3.5 - 2.1 1. Taken from Ricker and Gottschalk (1941). 63 1941). In lakes with soft, muddy bottoms, pans may be attached along the bottom line to act as skis for easier movement (Miller 1952). By using light webbing and fastening weights to the center of the slack webbing, rolling of the nets in river currents can be prevented (Pet- erson 1958). Trap Nets and Fyke Nets Trap nets have been used in several rough fish removal projects. Suckers have been the major-species taken with this method. In the 1940's, sucker removal and demonstration netting projects were carried out on certain large lakes in Michigan (Crowe 1949). In these projects, suckers were harvested with commercial trap nets (small "subs") with the following dimensions: crib - 4 feet by 6 - 8 feet by 8 - 10 feet, with 300 foot leads and 2 1/2 inch stretch mesh. The average catch per lift of suckers ranged from 8 (Mullet Lake, Table 16) to 134 (348 pounds, Burt Lake, Table 17). The nets were usually lifted once every three days but occasional seven-day sets were made. The nets were generally set near stream mouths (Crowe 1947), over either sand and gravel or plain sand sediments. Water depth ranged from 4 to 12 feet (Crowe 1946). Johnson (1977) used trap nets to harvest suckers on 605-acre Wilson Lake, Lake County, Minnesota. During May 21 to June 3, 1966, 5,369 adult white suckers-weighing 15,600 pounds (85% of the estimated biomass of suckers) were harvested. Grice (1958) used fyke nets to remove trash fish and panfish from 45 ponds in Massachusetts. A total of 127,430 pounds of panfish and trash.fish were removed from the ponds during 1951-1956. Grice's fyke nets were D-framed, heart-lead bonneted wingnets. The leads were 100 to 64 .umwfl use uswsmo panama I mummaw umsoH .uzmomo panama Hmuou I muswww Home: .~ .Aososv ozone sous comma .H nwa.o~ ass Nam soc mam omo.~ omm.~ mae.ms mam swoop Amado Ame Amos Aavv Asav Aaov any Rams mmm.s owe m N has omo.~ was How am ms\w~\s-ms\o~\m amuse cm> comes Amos - I Amos i . Ase Ammo mq\a~\suws\m\s sam.m . u m u 1 «Nu sem.m mm ss\oM\~Huae\aH\Ha summons mucosa Ammo . Amos RHVV Amy : Ame Ase .oem.s . we a Nam . mes Ham am ms\m~\snss\a\ss somsm cmmaonmno Ammo . Ame . I . Assv Ame ms\a~\sumq\o~\m cam I Ne . I I «AN sea om ms\aa\susq\a\ss “mama: cmmsonmso Asmv Asvv Amy Ame : . Ammo Ammo om~.sa Ha mmm mam . . o-.H man.sa «so ms\os\mnae\~\aa spam ammsonmao sumo ofimaom uonusm mmuosomm some vmmnaasm mumxoom m Hmuoe umumszmmum cumwu mama oxma >uo=oo Nmmfiommm m z .quma mom mama wcauso .smwwnofiz as moxma osmacfi owuma manuumo Boom swam omufiawuoumoca mo museumo .oH magma 65 Table 17. Catches of suckers from sucker removal and demonstration netting projects in certain large Michigan lakes. No No 1 Pounds1 % of County Lake Date lifts caught caught catch Cheboygan - Burtz 3/21—5/13/47 55 7,367 19,154 83 (134) (348) Cheboygan Carp2 4/7-5/23/47 74 8,991 22,477 65 (122) (304) Alcona Hubbard2 4/18-5/22/47 48 5,468 14,217 89 (114) (296) Cheboygan Mulletz 3/28-5/13/47 18 675 1,755 24 (38) (97) Presque Isle Grand3 1945 and 1946 76 6,645 13,290 61 (87) (175) Montmorency East 4 1936 and 1937 - 2,041 4,338 - Twin Cheboygan Black4 1939 and 1940 - 7,225 16,256 - Otsego Big Bear4 1940-1943 - 5,778 10,400 - 1. Upper figure - total number, lower figure - catch per lift. 2. Taken frmm Crowe (1947). 3. Taken from Crowe (1946). 4. Taken from Crowe (1949). 66 200 feet long, 5 to 10 feet deep with 2 inch stretch mesh. The pots were composed of 1 1/2 inch mesh with a frame 5'6" wide and 4'6" high. The wings were 32 feet long, 9 to 10 feet deep with 1 1/2 inch mesh. The bonnets spanned 28 feet between the wings and were made of 1 1/2 inch mesh. Trawls Trawls usually are not used for commercial fishing in inland waters (Lagler 1956). Trawl nets probably could be adapted for fishing large inland lakes that are relatively free of obstructions. A special trawl is used routinely for harvesting rough fish in a large Wisconsin lake. Fish Traps The wood fish trap may be an effective method for capturing rough fish in certain situations. Fish traps used in the Wisconsin carp fishery are constructed of l by 4 or 2 by 4 inch boards driven verti— cally into the lake or stream bottom and spaced about 1 1/2 inches apart (Miller 1952). Stones must be placed along the bottom of the boards to prevent the fish from rooting their way out. To be effective, the fish trap must completely shut off the entrance to a stream bay or marsh. Rose and Moen (1951) used a fish trap in a carp removal project on 1,260-acre Lost Island Lake, Iowa. A permanent trap was constructed at an inlet to Lost Island Lake and operated for 6 years. The total pounds of carp captured in this fish trap ranged from 24,344 pounds (1945) Ito 113,245 pounds (1946) (Table 18). Baiting . Baiting may prove to be a successful way of concentrating large num- bers of commercial fishes in inland lakes. Buck et a1. (1960) per- formed carp baiting experiments with sour corn in three Illinois lakes. 67 Table 18. Total weight removed, pounds per acre removed and average weight of carp removed with a permanent trap from Lost Island Lake, 1944 - 19491. Total Pounds Average Year removed 5:303:38 Weights 1944 - - 1.8 1945 24,344 19.3 2.0 1946 113,245 80.8 2.0 1947 68,538 54.3 2.3 1948 30,785 25.2 4.5 1949 24,492 19.4 6.0 1950 29,870 23.6 10.0 1. Taken from Rose and Moen (1951). 68 Results showed that sour corn seemed to repel most other fishes so that large numbers of carp, and possibly catfishes, could be concentrated and killed with small losses of game fish. Buck et a1. (1960) suggested that in the largest lake (Slocum Lake - 225 acres), control of carp would require several treatments in each of several widely separated areas. A natural cove or channel would be the best baiting area but the authors indicated that carp might be lured to enclosures made with seines or chicken wire. If a channel is present, the fish could be lured into the channel, then the channel could be quickly closed off and seined (poisoning with rotenone was used by Buck et al. 1960). Any current in the lake should be used to distribute the scent of the bait (Buck et a1. 1960). Low concentrations of carp were obtained when baiting one of the smaller lakes because available currents were not used to distribute the scent. Large scent bags (burlap sacks filled with bait) may also be used to help attract the fish. With continuous bait- ing, carp can be reconcentrated at fairly short intervals of time. Buck et a1. (1960) suggests that best use of the technique would be to esta- blish permanent, continuously baited areas where carp could be captured as often as they could be concentrated. At 225-acre Slocum Lake, 5,871 pounds of carp were attracted to the'baited area and killed there within 36 to 48 hours following a first treatment with rotenone (Table 19). Relatively large numbers of catfish and lesser numbers of bullhead were also killed in the Slocum Lake baiting experiment. Buck et a1. (1960) suggest that these two species may also be attracted to bait, but effective comparisons were not possible because of inadequate data. Baits other than corn that might prove more effective, or economi- cal, might be oats, soybean cake, cottonseed cake, bread or dried milk, either singly or in combination (Buck et a1. 1960). 69 Table 19. Numbers, weights and pounds per acre of fish recovered by chemically treating an area baited with corn at Slocum Lake (225 acres) following listed baiting periodsl. 1956 1957 Baiting:Periods 7/20-7/23 8/3-8/20 7/15-7/28 7/29-7/31 No. applications and total wt. of corn (pounds) .2-400 6-1300 79-1090 1-336 _ Species No. lbs. No. lbs. No. lbs. No. lbs. Largemouth bass 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bluegill 93 19 20 1 - tr. - tr. Misc. Sunfishes - 11 0 0 75 4 14 l Crappies 97 24 5 l 22 1 0 0 Channel catfish 19 17 323 174 755 362 74 35 Bullhead 182 30 290 48 28 7 10 3 Carp 967 1,808 2,525 5,800 523 1,692 3,727 5,871 Totals 1,363 1,914 3,164 6,024 1,403 2,066 3,825 5,910 Pounds per acre of lake Carp 8.0 25.8 7.5 26.1 Channel catfish tr. 0.8 1.6 0.2 Others 0.4 0 2 tr. - Totals 8.4 26.8 9.1 26.3 1. Taken from Buck et al. (1960). 7O Ultrasonic Tracking and Sonar Ultrasonic tracking may be useful in locating large aggregations of commercial fishes in inland lakes. Johnsen and Hasler (1977) used ultrasonic tracking equipment to find large aggregations of carp in 9,736-acre Lake Mendota, Wisconsin. By knowing where these aggrega- tions were, commercial fishermen harvested 102,294 pounds of carp and bigmout buffalo with only 57,743 feet of gill net while fishing through the ice (January 29 through March 9, 1976). Some net avoidance was observed by instrumented fish. The authors indicated that seining before freeze-up may have been more efficient than gillnetting through the ice. Carp in Lake Mendota aggregated in the same two locations in autumn and winter, in two consecutive years. Both areas were from 5 to 7 meters deep, located near large beds of macrophytes. In both years, instrumented fish arrived at the aggregation areas with relative synchrony within 2 to 12 days (December 20-21, 1974; November 22 through December 2, 1975). Fish made their most extensive movements during the time interval just prior to arrival at the aggregation areas. These rapid movements followed turnover and occurred when the lake temperature was below 80 C. The aggregations of fish in this study represented only carp larger than 3 kg (Johnsen and Hasler 1977). It was not known if the aggregations were composed of all carp from the lake, or only the larger carp. Smal- ler carp were observed under the ice in marshes. Sonar may also help to locate large aggregations of commercial fishes. The literature on this method was not available for inclusion in the present study, but the University of Wisconsin has experimented with sonar in detecting large schools of fish (Peterson 1958). Strand and Scidmore (1969) have investigated sonar as an aid to under-ice rough fish seining. 71 Other Helpful Methods Inland lake operations harvesting large amounts of rough fish usually require mechanical aids for moving nets and transporting fish. In addition to barges and winches used in pulling seines, elevators (Peterson 1958) and crane lifted nets (Spitler 1976 - for dead fish) have been used to load fish onto trucks. Fish pumps might also be adapted for this type of work. Holding ponds may be necessary to retain fish until they can be transported to market. Often large quantities of rough fish are cap- tured in a short period of time and holding ponds offer a quick means of disposal (Miller 1952). Live cribs may assist in saving time for sort- ing and separating out game fish (Peterson 1958). A 10 foot wide by 61 foot long live crib used in Wisconsin was capable of holding 80,000 pounds of carp. Optimal Fishing Seasons Winter aggregations and spawning runs of rough fishes have success- fully aidéd commercial fishermen in capturing large numbers of fish in inland waters. In Wisconsin, carp seining operations must be carried out in the spring and fall to be effective in control efforts (Miller 1952). Carp form large aggregations in the fall which usually disperse after spring ice-out (Miller 1952; Jonsen and Hasler 1977). After ice- out, they scatter for a short period until Spawning time. Large num- bers of carp usually spawn in marshy or shallow weedy areas of a lake (Scott and Crossman 1973). After spawning, they again scatter until fall turnover. Spawning usually begins in May and may extend to August in the Great Lakes Region depending on water temperatures (Swee and McCrimmon 1966). Spawning usually begins in earnest when water temperatures reach 62.6 F (17 C). 72 In Michigan, suckers have usually been harvested with trap nets in the fall and spring. Crowe (1949) studying sucker removal projects in Michigan, noted that the poorest fishing occurred in mid-winter under heavy ice cover. In general, fishing was fairly good for suckers prior to ice formation, followed by very poor fishing and a second production peak after the break-up. There was some indication that the best per- iod had already passed when netting was resumed in the spring. White suckers usually spawn from early May to early June. Adults usually migrate from lakes into gravelly streams when the water tempera- ture reaches 50 F (10 C), but they also spawn on lake margins, or quiet areas in the mouth of blocked streams (Scott and Crossman 1973) Sein- ing may be a useful method of capture for suckers where large numbers of spawners could be captured in a single haul. Artificially concentra- ting suckers by baiting has not been attempted. All three species of bullhead, the yellow, black and brown bullhead, usually spawn from.May to June when water temperatures reach about 70 F (21.1 C) (Scott and Crossman 1973). Information is not available con- cerning the best times of the year of best methods for capturing bull- head. Presently, however, Gary Schnicke of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is initiating a commercial harvest of bullhead on Lake St. Helen in Michigan. His study should provide some insight into the effectiveness of bullhead harvest in inland lakes. Problems in Netting Netting problems often occur in inland lakes where extensive areas of aquatic macrophytes or other obstructions occur. Obstructions are especially a problem in impoundments where flooded waters often contain many old tree stumps. Seining Operations in impoundments will be restrict- 73 ed to areas free of obstructions. Trap nets may be more versatile in impoundments, but stumps will still present a problem. Some of the methods previously discussed may aid in successfully fishing impoundments. Baiting trap nets, or baiting areas free of ob- structions may help catch large numbers of rough fish in impoundments. Currents are usually prevalent in impoundments which can greatly aid in distributing the scent of the bait. Fish traps may be useful in imr poundments where they can be set in shallow areas where rough fish are known to spawn. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS The removal of abundant rough fish populations from inland lakes has been a common management tool for many years. As of 1952, at least forty states and provinces were conducting programs for commercial or rough fish harvest through commercial fishing, state supported opera- tions, or state supervised volunteers (Schneberger 1952).. Many of these control efforts continue at the present time. The most obvious benefits of removing rough fish from inland lakes are in improving water clarity, increasing fish forage base and reducing damage to rooted aquatic vegetation. These benefits may be desirable J in themselves, or they may be indicative of improved conditions for game and panfish populations. Several studies have attempted to measure the effects of rough fish removal on game and panfish populations (Crowe 1946, 1947, 1949; Grice 1958; Johnson 1977; Mbyle et a1. 1950; Rawson and Elsey 1950; Ricker and Gottschalk 1941; Rose and Moen 1951, 1953). Fram 1939 to 1948, sucker removal projects were carried out by the Michigan Institute for Fisheries Research on certain large inland lakes in Michigan with overabundant sucker populations (Tables 16, 17; Crowe 1946, 1947, 1949). As-a result of these investigations, Crowe (1949) recommended that suckers can be harvested from inland lakes where investi- gation indicates that conditions warrant the effort and where local fish- ing is not adequate to utilize the crop. In the lakes where suckers had become the dominant species, removal was beneficial to the game species and brought about more favorable balances in the fish community. He also noted that in certain selected large lakes, suckers probably can be har- vested even though they do not occupy a dominant position in the fish community. 74 75 Johnson (1977) measured the response of walleye and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) populations to removal of white suckers from a Min- nesota lake in 1966. His results indicated that percid populations may benefit by the removal of white suckers in relatively infertile lakes where the number of species is low. In a 7-year period following inten- sive removal of adult white suckers, catches of adult white suckers remained far below pre-removal catches, but juvenile suckers increased about l7-fold, yellow perch increased about lS-fold, and the standing crap of walleye increased about one-third. There was some indication that recruitment of the very abundant immature suckers would restore, to some degree, the adult population. The changes in the structure of the fish community were related to changes in the food web. Rawson and Elsey (1950) harvested suckers from 320-acre Pyramid Lake, Alberta, in an attempt to improve the rainbow trout population. Removal of about 27,000 longnose suckers and 6,000 mountain whitefish pro- duced no detectable improvement in the survival of rainbow trout in the 5-year harvest period (1940-1945), or the three years which followed. Six species of fish were present in the lake: mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, lake trout, longnose sucker and lake chub. The authors noted that the increased survival of young suckers may have nullified the expected decrease in food competition. They also sug- gested that the removal of coarse fish from cold, trout-producing lakes may not prove as helpful as it had been in certain warmewater lakes. Rose and Moen (1953) found an increase in game fish populations in 1,400—acre East Okoboji Lake, Iowa, following intensive removal of rough fish. During the management period, the average catch per seine haul of rough.fish.decreased while the average catch per seine haul of game 76 fish increased. Buffalo, carp and freshwater drum were the primary species of rough fish harvested; yellow perch, crappie, bullhead and blue- gill were the primary species of fish that benefited from the harvest. White bass and walleye catches increased somewhat toward the end of the management period. The authors concluded that where carrying capacities of fish are high, as in the lakes of northern Iowa and where rough fish are strongly dominant, reduction must be extensive and continued in order to effect significant increases in game fish populations. Ricker and Gottschalk (1941) noted improved game fish populations after removing coarse fish from 1,600-acre Bass Lake, Indiana. Forty- five tons of carp, twenty tons of quillback and six tons of buffalo were removed from the lake in 1935 and 1936. Catch indices showed a reduc- tion in the number of rough fish from 1935 to 1936 and an increase in the number of game fish for the same period. The major species of game fish benefiting from the operation were walleye, striped bass, small- mouth bass, bluegill and black crappie. Consistent with the improved game fish populations, water clarity improved and increased growth of aquatic vegetation occurred in Bass Lake. Up to 1940, there had been no significant reversion to conditions existing prior to 1935. Rose and Moen (1951) found an increase in the growth of black bullhead after removal of carp from 1,260-acre Lost Island Lake, Iowa. Annual removal ranged from 19.3 to 80.8 pounds per acre of carp from 1945 to 1950. During the same period angler catch limits on bullhead were removed.) As a result of these experimental practices, the average catch of bullhead decreased, but the average weight and length of bull- head increased throughout the management period (from 1.5 inches and 0.1 ounces to 10.4 inches and 10.1 ounces). The changes in growth were related to competition for food between the carp and bullhead. 77 Grice (1958) attempted to improve game fish populations in 45 Mas- sachusetts ponds by removing panfish and trash fish with fyke nets from 1951 to 1956. These experments did not improve game fish populations. The predominant species of game fish tested in these experiments were chain pickeral and largemough bass. Fyke netting usually increased the growth of the Species being thinned, which in most ponds was panfish. Apparently, young, rapidly growing panfish, rather than game fish filled the void left by harvesting. Removal of trash fish from these ponds ranged from 1 to 146 pounds per acre annually. It should be noted that in 28-acre Duck Pond, substantial increases in bullhead growth were achieved after thinning operations. Moyle et a1. (1950) in comparing 25 years of catch data from 14 rough fish lakes in southern Minnesota, concluded that removing an aver- age of 92 pounds per acre per season had no permanent effect in reducing the size of carp and buffalo populations. They found, in general, that rough fish lakes in Minnesota support 375 pounds per acre of fish, of which 280 pounds are rough fish, largely carp. The annual poundage increment of rough fish (96.6 pounds per acre) in southern Minnesota waters is approximately one-third of the standing crop of rough fish (281 pounds per acre). The authors believe, in general, that rough fish have no effect on the total poundage of game fish in southern Minne- sota lakes. The average weight of game and forage fish was 101.1 pounds per acre in game fish lakes, and 93.4 pounds per acre in rough fish lakes. In an earlier discussion, Mbyle (1949) noted that much of the early work on rough fish control in Minnesota resulted only in harvesting the annual growth of the rough fish population. More intensive operations, however, did result in temporary marked reductions in the size of carp populations in certain lakes. 78 In summary of the literature: Johnson (1977), Rose and Moen (1951), and Rose and Moen (1953) found that continuous, intensive removal efforts resulted in improved game fish populations. Ricker and Gottschalk (1941) noted that benefits to game fish populations lasted for at least two years after two years of consecutive annual harvest of rough fish. Crowe (1949) found improved angling of game fish and a reduction in the rela- tive size of the sucker population after netting operations. Moyle (1949) noted temporary, marked reductions in the size of carp populations after intensive removal operations. In contrast, Grice (1958) found no im- provement in game fish populations after removal of trash fish and pan- fish from 45 Massachusetts ponds. Rawson and Elsey (1950) found no increase in a rainbow trout population following removal of longnose suckers. In reviewing 25 years of catch data, Moyle et a1. (1950) noted no permanent reductions in rough fish populations subjected to removal operations. The question arises whether stable, desirable populations of game fish can be achieved through intensive removal of rough fish. The liter- ature indicates that this type of management has increased game fish populations in some instances. The success of the type of management depends upon a variety of factors including: species composition, water quality, type of lake, intensity of removal and post-removal management. Variation in interspecific interactions may account for the success of sucker removal operations. A difference may be implied in the oppo- site results obtained by Johnson (1977), and Rawson and Elsey (1950). Removal of suckers appear to benefit the warmrwater fish population but not the cold-water trout population. 79 Variation is also present in the reproductive response of different species of fish to increased harvest. Neese et a1. (1957) found that increased reproduction did not occur after 5 years of heavy exploita- tion of a carp population. Mraz and Cooper (1957) found no relationship between the density of adult carp and the number of young surviving to the end of the first summer. In contrast, Johnson (1977), and Rawson and Elsey (1950) noted high recruitment of suckers after removal opera- tions. Changes in water quality may lead to conditions more favorable to rough fish than to game fish. When this occurs it will be necessary to improve water quality before any favorable improvement in game fish popu- lations can be achieved through rough fish management. Water quality deterioration and changes in species compositions resulted in the esta- blishment of a large carp papulation in Lake Macatawa, Michigan. Recome mendations were made to improve the water quality and reduce the rough fish population in that lake (Trimberger, personal communication). Some lakes may have characteristics principally suited to rough fish, as was noted by Moyle (1949) for Minnesota lakes. Lakes of this type may not be desirable for game fish management and could be used as a commercially harvestable source of fish protein. Most lakes subject to rough fish management will probably require continuous, or at least intermittent, removal operations. Compensa- tory recruitment can easily restore a sucker population (Mraz and Cooper 1957). The potential egg deposition of one female carp of 4 to 5 pounds may exceed 200,000 eggs. Impoundments, and inland lakes with tributary streams are subject to re-invasion by rough fish from outside sources, possibly allowing a quicker re-establishment of the rough fish population. 80 If good game fish populations can be established through rough fish removal, angling intensity for game fish probably will increase. Intensive angling for game fish can give a competitive advantage to the lightly exploited rough fish population. Continuous removal of rough fish may be necessary to partially offset this imbalance in the fishery. Another tool that might be useful in this type of management is predator stocking programs. Only recently has predator stocking been investigated as a possible tool in rough fish management programs (Wis- consin is presently conducting a study on this subject - Hacker, personal communication).. Stocking game fish after intensive removal operations could help game fish fill the void left by removal, and possibly stop the resurgence of rough fish populations. Chemical control is usually the alternative method of controlling rough fish populations in inland lakes. Many biologists feel that che- mical control, rather than mechanical control, is a much more efficient way of controlling over-abundant rough fish populations. From 1971 to 1976 in Michigan, 84 lakes (11,801 acres) and 10 streams (264 acres) were chemically treated, some of these for rough fish control (Reynolds, personal communication). Chemical control of lakes and streams in ‘Michigan has been a very successful management tool, attracting more fishing than any other form of present management (marsh management - maintenance trout stocking - stocking predators, Trimberger 1975). Perhaps another form of management, mechanical rough fish management, should be introduced into inland lakes inliichigan. There is, after all, a tremendous waste of fish protein in chemical reclamation projects. It is obviously desirable to utilize this resource if at all possible, an idea shared by most Department of Natural Resources district fishery 81 biologists in Michigan. There is, however, some reluctance by biolo- gists in Michigan to attempt rough fish removal projects with commercial crews. This reluctance partly results from an uneasiness in allowing commercial fishermen into inland waters, partly due to unfavorable pub- lic reaction, and partly because they are not sure this type of manage: ment will work effectively. Very few rough fish removal projects have been attempted in Michigan. The only attempts that have been conducted, from personal communication and the literature, were those of Crowe (1946, 1947, 1949), and another on Lake Macatawa, Ottawa County, from 1927 to 1942. Recently, Lake Macatawa has been chemically treated. As noted earlier, several states currently have rough fish control programs. Minnesota annually nets about seven million pounds of rough fish from their inland lakes (Hennagir 1975). Carp, buffalo, perch, suckers, redhorse, freshwater drum, bowfin, burbot, tullibee, gar pike, goldeyes, bullhead and turtles are target species for removal operations. About 225 inland lakes are fished by commercial contract crews using seines and hOOpnets. Another 150 lakes, where commercial operations are reluctant to net, are fished by state netting crews (Hennagir 1975). From 1976 to 1977, about 4.5 million pounds of rough fish were harvested by contract fishermen and state netting crews in Minnesota (Appendix D). Carp, bullhead, buffalo, freshwater drum (sheepshead) and sucker accounted for the largest portion of the catch. Minnesota’s policy states that rough fish will be harvested for the best use of this natural protein resource and for the benefit of sport fish. None of their lakes are harvested for their maximum sustainable yield of rough fish (Hennagir, personal communication). Since 1934, Wisconsin has had an extensive commercial fishery for rough fish in their inland waters. Presently, one state crew and 20 82 contract crews operate in their inland waters. In 1974, 1975 and 1976, 3,412,410, 3,254,295 and 6,441,299 pounds, respectively, were harvested from Wisconsin's inland waters (Hacker, personal communication; Appen- dix D). Carp, freshwater drum (sheepshead) and buffalo accounted for the largest portion of the total catch. Bullhead, bowfin, burbot, gar, quillback, suckers and gizzard shad are other underutilized fish taken in Wisconsin. Michigan has 56 lakes and impoundments (116,694 acres) with the potential for commercial harvest of underutilized fish. This figure is much smaller than those given for Minnesota (375 rough fish lakes) and Wisconsin (137,708 acres alone in Lake Winnebago). It is evident that an inland lake commercial fishery for underutilized fish in Michigan would not be as extensive as those in Minnesota and Wisconsin. SUMMARY The primary species of underutilized fish in Michigan's inland lakes are carp, white sucker, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead and black bullhead. The white sucker is the primary commercial species in 54.9% (mostly in Regions I and II), bullhead in 24.9% (scattered throughout the state), and carp in 20.22 (all in Regions II and III) of the designa- ted inland waters in the state. Other species of rough fish common in Michigan's inland lakes are channel catfish, freshwater drum, red- horse, longnose gar, shortnose gar, goldfish, gizzard shad and alewife. A total of 116,694 acres may be available for the commercial har- vest of underutilized fish in Michigan's inland waters. The total acreage for each region of the state is as follows: Region I — 37,277 acres, Region II - 63,868 acres, Region III - 15,549 acres. Based on preliminary biomass estimates, these waters support 7,996,425 pounds of rough fish. Or by region: Region I - 1,453,803 pounds (using an average of 39 pounds per acre), Region II - 4,023,684 pounds (using an average of 63 pounds per acre), Region III - 2,518,938 pounds (using an average of 162 pounds per acre). Natural lakes account for 78.82 V (91,976 acres) of the designated waters in the state while impoundments account for the remaining 21.22 (24,718 acres). Four lakes (3,940 acres) and two large rivers (the Raisin and Grand) located in Region III, should be considered as potential future sources of underutilized fish (unavailable at the present time because of contaminant problems). Seines are the most common type of gear used in inland lake rough fish management. Other methods which have been used include gill nets, trap nets, fyke nets, trawls and fish traps. Further investigation should be conducted on baiting rough fish as a means to concentrate them 81 84 for capture. Ultrasonic tracking and sonar are useful aids for locating large aggregations of rough fish in inland lakes. Harvesting rough fish from inland lakes has been a common management tool in the United States for many years. The literature indicates that intensive rough fish removal has been used to obtain certain con- ditions in inland lakes including increased forage base, increased growth of aquatic plants, and increased water clarity; several studies have indicated achievement of increased populations of game fish. The success of this type of management depends on a variety of factors including species composition, water quality, type of lake, and intensity and periodicity of removal. Predator, or game fish stocking and limits on angling may be necessary to maintain desirable populations of game fish. Mechanical harvest may be an alternative, at least in some situ- ations, to the present form of rough fish control in Michigan, chemical control. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FISHERY SURVEY DATA FOR 60 INLAND LAKES AND RIVERS IN MICHIGAN This data was compiled from Michigan Department of Natural Resources inland lake fishery surveys. The table includes the lake number (as designated in Table 1 of the text); the name of the lake or river; the effort expended (in feet - ft., lift - 1., acres seined, or electro- shocking - shock, by hour) and date of survey; the total catch (game and rough fish combined),upper figure - total number caught, lower figure - total weight caught; the species of rough fish (abbreviated - see below); the percentage, by number, of the catch; the percentage, by weight, of the catch; and the range or average size of the fish. * Abbreviated names of fish used in Appendix A: White Sucker Wh. Su. Black.Bullhead Bl. Bh. Longnose Sucker Lgn. Su. Channel Catfish Ch. Cat. Quillback Quillb. Carp Carp Northern Hog Sucker N. Hgsu. Goldfish Goldf. Buffalo Buff. Freshwater drum Fw. Dr. Spotted Sucker Sp. Su. Bowfin Bowf. Redhorses Redh. Longnose Gar Lgn. Gar Yellow Bullhead Y. Bh. Shortnose Gar Shn. Gar Brown Bullhead Br. Bh. Gizzard Shad G. Shad Alewife Alew. 85 86 .mmosoe moumGMfimmn .H e~\mauoa\m Hooe.a ms.o Hence Hooe.H .H onsets m.~H . ms.o .nm .nm mafia .H mflumxse m.ss Ho8 H . .sm .e: esm.a .ue omauaaau scams m me\m.m\m .H owumssa as.-m~v can ease o.m~ Hm.sm sm.o~ .sm .ez ssm.m .ue mem.fl-aaau Acme me\m~-e~\m o.wa ea.as am.“ .sm .;3 mum .ue omeuafiau Hs\m\HH «.0H . om.- .am .;3 as .se oomuaaau nonsense N mm.am He.ms Hence ok\sfluoH\m H.oH om.mm mo.mm .em .Hm .H Quanta k.sH mm.m ~m.a .eeme as.maqv .H unseen m.mH HN.~H e~.m .sm .e: can on ammueflao m~.m~ ms.me Hmuoe a.e s~.em eo.oe .nm .Hm se\-\s m.ma mm.o~ ~m.s .eeom Am.smmv .H sausage w.sH ea.“ an. .sm .ez ooh .ue cma-aaau “mono H on m guano nuumo moaooam guano Hmuoa some oxoa mo oemz .oz a was so was no we» stones mama so owcmm . J3 an N 62 .3 N _ .cmwwnuwz :« muo>wu mam moxma mamas“ em you Name em>hom huonmfim .H< oHAMH 87 sm.He aa.~e Hence NA\om--\e Aasmmm o.e mm.e we.qa .sm .Hm a~.msmv .H canvass mmmuoum um>em m.HH sn.me Hm.we .am .ez moo.a was amps .Hasu emcee aoumucam a NH.ee ms.se Hence H.- ss.e oh.o .esom kk\e~\e m.m~ mH.m~ e~.~ sumo .H Nusmue ~.e ea.om as.ek .am .Hm Aa.eHHV .H «Image H.ma mm.e ec.H muoxosm «mm .ue coo.H-HH«u mac: 9 ms\~muo~\m as.mm mm.we Hence a -mcamm o.HH ek.hs w~.ee .em .Hm as.omsv .H muoxsm o.ea so.m m.~ .sm .53 sen .nu mme-HHao k~\mue\e whom H flan—u se.se mm.mm Hence mmma-masmm a.» mm.cm Hm.cw .em .Hm Aousv .H qumxse gamma w.- Hm.sa em.m .sm .:2 com .H oH-HHao “macs canoe =< m sk.ss m~.am sauce Ne\m~-ma\e o.m~ o~.e km.o sumo ouu< Numeamm e.oH oe.ma -.sa .sm .Hm .H s-saue m.mH sm.mm HN.NH .am .53 as.msev .H «-mssa moo.~ .H m~saasu sauna =< s sou—mo nouns mofiomem soumo 130% 33H «o 9.52 .oz noowwmm was no we» no camowmweem came a 3.3 3 N .2 .3 N A.e.uaoov .H< «Home 88 mm.se Haney - . so.o .em .um I I mN.N .eeoe NN\¢N-¢H\¢ . I mN.No .sm .e: Nam.s .H ougamue 1 Nm.mm Hence o.muo.e . sm.o .nm .um o.o~-o.sN . ss.~ .eemm NN\mN-HN\s o.oNuo.NH - Ns.ss .sm .5: soa.m .H asusmua onesuawamz as mH.mm HH.sm Hence m.ma I ms.o .eaom eNNsaumHNm m.HH om.Nm mm.Ns .em .um as.Homv .H Nfiumsss s.sH mw.H ma.e .sm .e: see .ne mNe-HHNu sm.¢m Nm.mH Hmuoe m.NN oo.~ ca.o .esom m.s om.o oH.o .nm .Hm sN\NNuoN\N e.oH ms.NH mm.s .em .um RN.soNV .H mmusmne H.NH sa.am Nm.m .sm .;3 noo.H new mass snoo>mum oH «H.0m Ne.am Haney NNNNH-HH\Q e.m No.mm os.mN .em .um aN.HmHV .H wumasa N.¢N mm.~m NN.m .am moan: Nmm .H slants mmaoaamxmsz a ee\HN\e mafieooae o.mmuo.s I mN.Nm .sm .es mus .ne mNouaaau “macaw suede m swam soumo noumo mofiooem soumo Hence oust oxoa mo mamz .oz no owcmm one no one mo mam uuomum oxma .sz an N .oz an N A.e.u:oov .H< «News 89 I mo.HN Haney N.NH I mo.~ .em .um m.sHIm.sH I o~.m .eeme NNNmIMNn m.NHIe.NH I sH.Hs .sm .5: mm .H NIamue cmHecH «H eN\m~Ie~\o mm.HN mN.am Hence .H ssIsmus H.HH as.o Ne.o .nn .um He.smo.Hv new mass N.NH so.HN mc.sm .sm .e: Nam .H NIHHHu eNNmNINN\m sm.ee mH.Nm Hence .H mIamue o.cH Hm.o am.o .em .um Ho.mmsv .H «NIosNa o.NH mo.so s~.Hm .am .e: mas .ue omNIHHHu NNHeNNH s.NH mN.eN me.sN .sm .n: eNN .H oHImxsm u~>HHH=o MH I we.mm Hence I I Hs.o .em .nm HN\eNImH\s I I No.m .eeoa .H eHImsNH I I oN.Nm .sm .3: omH.N can same I Ne.os Hence I I Nm.o .em .Hm I I Nm.o .euae mNNmIN\n I I mo.sm .am .e: mso.H .H eHIsmua asaHumHamz .m NH . momma aouoo mowooem nuumo Houos Mum mama mo mamz .oz .ouem one wo mam no u axed so owomx .uz an N .02 an N moo uuommm He.uaoov .H< «Heme 90 I NN.sm Hayes I I Nm.o .eaom I I NH.c same I I Nm.o .nm .N eN\N\mIoN\s I I ee.Nm .sm .e: omN.m .H smHIsmna cameo oH I. oeNsNINN\HH N.HHIm.m ms.Hm .em .nm was .H HHIsmua me\mH\N o.HHIN.m I oH.mN .sm .nm HsN .ne omNIHHHc sums escape NH I ms.om Huuoa m.oN I eH.H .ezom oIm I ms.NN emmaHHsm Ne\oHIm\oH a.sH I em.e .sm .es mmN.s .H mNIsmne I mm.~m Hmnoe H.HN I Hm.o .Hzom m.NIm.m I He.cm .em .um m.HHIm.m I oH.m .am .Hm ms\sN\N H.wHIs.NH I mm.sH .am .n: emH .se omN.HIHHHu ones: eH «N.ae ~s.em Hence eNNHNImHNe m.m mH.mN mm.mm .em .um Ha.mnNV .H snIamne econ H.eH sm.ss so.NH .am .ez «No.H .ue coo.NIHHHu mHHz so>om mH I ms.Hs Haney I I NH.o .em .Hm HN\m\mINN\s I I SN.Hs .3m .53 sow .H aIamua onwm soumo noumo mowooem noumo HmuOH muse used no mama .02 no owomm one no one mo pom uuommm mama .us an N .oz an N H.e.u=ouv .H< uHsma 91 I mm.Hs Hmuos I HN.m .usom I mo.H sumo I mo.H .sm .um NNNmHINH\m I mm.~ .sm .Hm .mHa comIsmomm I NH.s .smms .H mIsmuu I mm.NN .sm .e: «mm .uu osm.HIHHHo msos mHmHuams «N mmuooom oz ouuoovumz whom mm mvuoumm OZ wwumfiflmz NN Ns.mH Hmuos I HN.s sumo Ns\s\m I mN.m .sm .ss ms .uu coo.HIHHHo usoamus HN «H.sm om.sH Hmuou «H.o mH.o sumo mo.o mH.o .umo .so I «N.m .mmms Hm.smms mNNsN\N ms.mm mN.HH .sm .ms mes .uu coo.sIHHHo msos smums oN o~.om sm.sH Hmuou Nm.o mm.s .BHHHsc smNHNIcNNm sm.sH ~N.N .uaom .ue mN.HIsmosm mo.HH Ns.o sumo Husmo .H mImsss HH.sH om.oH mmmmHHmm NNN .uu mum.NIHHHo mmmm sH noumo noumo mmwooom soumo Houoe oust mama mo mamz .oz msu so mmu so msmH uo owcmm .u3 %n N .02 h: N was uu0mmm H.m.umooo .Hm mHsmu 92 I mo.mH Hmuos o.mN I om.s .uaom m.sH I Nm.o sumo NN\NHINH\m N.NH I sH.s .5m .us .mu5 m.NI5mo5m o.NH I Nm.o .5s .Hm .H mIsmua o.mH I mH.H .sm .53 «NH .uu oss.HIHHHo mums muoos NN I mo.HN Hmuos «.mN I sN.m .Naos m.oH I mm.m .5s .um NN\mNINN\m N.NH I Hm.N .5s .Hs .mu5 mIsmo5m H.sH I mN.o .5mms .H mIsmuu o.HH I sN.N .mm .53 NHm .uu omsIHHHo msos msooo mN HNNNNIHNNN m.NH I sm.o .mm .53 smH .H NIsmue I ms.o Hmuou m.oH I ss.o .5m .um HNNNH\N m.mH I sq.o .mm .53 NoN .H mIsmus . m5umumumz mN I em.NN Hmuou I I mm.s .uaom I I mm.H sumo I I sm.N .5m .us NmNmHINHNm I I sm.sm .5mms .H mIsmus I I Nm.mH .mm .53 mHm msm mass ouwm mamas“ onwumw moaooam .aoumo annoy, comm ;_omoH_mo oamz mwmm no owomm .uu 3% N .0“ a“ N was uuommm H.m.u5oov .Hm mH5ms 93 om.mN ss.HN Hmuoa mNNHNNIsNNm N.m NN.HH NN.mH mmm5HHmm HNsmo .H mIsmuu H.mH mc.mH NN.m .mm .53 HsH.H .uu omN.HIHHHo mmNsmmmHz Hm I NN.NH Hmuos o.oNIo.mH I oN.o .usom o.oNIo.mH I NN.H .us .3s o.cNIo.mH I NN.o sumo s.sHIo.N I NN.s .5s .um s.sHIo.m I mm.H .5s .u NmNomIsNNN o.oNIo.oH I Hm.N .5mms .H mHIsmuu o.ONIo.oH I sN.N .mm .53 mos.H mmm mass smuum mms on I Nm.sN Hmuos I I NN.H .3mHm I I Nm.m umo I I OH.N .usom I I ms.m sumo I I ss.m .5m .um NmNomIsNNN I I mm.o .nm .Hm .H cannons I I so.m .5m .s on msm mass mmsmu sN m—uhoomm OZ venom 6304 mm I mm.m Hmuou I I SH .uaom I I No.m mmm5HH=m smNNINNN I I oN.o .5mms .H oHImsss I I NN.o .mm .53 NNs mam smus mean noumo noumo mofiooam noumo Hence must ome no 08oz .02 no owamm one mo one mo was uuouwm use: .3 .3 N 62 s5 N H.m.u5ooo .Hm mH5ms 94 mo.Hm mo.mm Hmuoe o.sN mm.NH ms.m .osom m.oN «N.m NN.H sumo mNNoHINNN s.m «m.oN «H.sm mmm5HH=o AHmm.HV .H mmIsmue N.NH ms.mH NH.m .3m .53 mmm.H .uu msm.sIHHHo smHm3 .um mm mvuooom oz wowwmwm em ON.NN se.mm Hmuoe N.sN I mN.o umo .5NH N.NN I ms.o .ssom N.HN I Nm.o sumo m.oH oN.mN NN.HN .55 .um Hm.somo NNNN.H\m H.NH I mN.H .sm .53 com .H oNIsmus mou5mmo3 mm I os.mm Hmuoe oNNHNImNN N.HN I mo.H .usos .mu5 oHIsoo5m N.sN I ms.N sumo .H HIsmue s.oH I NN.m .5m .um .H mHImsss m.mH I HH.Hm mumxomm ssN.H .uu coo.NIHHHo mums on Nm sN.NN ms.NH Hmuoe s.s Nm.mH sm.NH .5m .um NNNNHINHNm N.m I NN.N .5s .s HH.NmNo .H mHIsmue N.NH Nm.m mm.H .sm .53 csm .uu omN.HIHHHo mafia noumo soumo moaooom zoumo Hmuoa moot oxma mo mamz .oz m5u so m5u um mama no swoon .u3 an N .02 an N use uuowmm H.o.umoov .H< mHmma 95 I sm.mH Hmuoo H.HNIN.s I oN.m sumo N.sHIm.m I mm.m .umo .5o NmNNHIsNN m.NIN.m I NN.H .5m .um mHN .uu omN.NIHHHo muoommm on I sH.HN Hmumu «.NNIs.mH I oN.m sumo N.NHIs.s I mm.H .umo .5o m.oHIm.m I mH.m .5s .um m.NHI«.m I mm.m .5o .» N.NNIN.NH I mm.H .5mms NmNsINNN N.NHI«.NH I mN.m .mm .53 mom .us coo.NIHHHo somH3 on I ««.m Hmuou N.HNIN.ON I mo.« sumo NmNoNIHHNN o.sHIm.oH I mN.H .mm .53 NmH .H sIsmue I oN.s Hmuou «.OH I Ns.o .umo .5o «.HHIs.N I mm.m .5o .us N.NH I Ns.o .5o .Hs NmNCNINHNN o.ONIN.NH I mm.m .sm .53. mcH .uu coo.NIHHHo muoomm um om.Hm Hm.mN Hmuou mmNNIHNm I m«.mH «s.N .osom .H «Imsss I «N.«N N«.H sumo HH.NHHV .H «Ismuu I No.s NH.sH mmm5HHsm «ON N IHHHo mmmm on mean noumo souoo mowooam noumo Hooch oust oxma mo oamz .oz so owsmm one mo ago no use uuowmm use; .u3 s5 N .oz s5 N H.m.u5ooo .Hm mH5me 96 I mo.sH Hmuos m.oH I mm.o mm5m .o m.mN I s«.s .usos m.s I m«.m .5o .um N.«N I mm.H sumo m.OH I mm.o .smms .z mN\«N\« N.mH I mm.H .5mms .H NIsmus H.mH I mm.H .mm .53 mNH .uu mN«IHHHo mommxmsz N« I Ho.m« Hmuou N.sHIo.oH I «N.oN mm5m .o N.NHIH.« I mm.oH .umHoo N.smIN.mN I NN.o umo .msH N.HNI«.NH I NN.o .5HHHso H.mNIN.oN I m«.N .osom H.Hm I mo.o .us .3s N.NNIm.s I Nm.H .umo .5o m.NHIN.oH I ms.o .5s .um o.«HIN.m I NN.H .5o .Hm N.HHI«.s I sH.o .5o .N m.HNIm.HH I om.m sumo NNNHHIoHNN s.oN I mo.o .sm .smH .H mIsmua m.«NIN.mH I om.o .5mmm .H oHImxss N.sHIm.oH I ms.o .mm .53 ocm.H .H mIHHHo mam: H« I HH.o« Hmuos . HNNNNIoN\« o.HH I «s.Nm .5o .» .H mImsss N.HN I NH.N .mm .53 men .H NIHHHo 5mHumuH53 o« omen coupe noumo moqomem guano Hmuoa some ome no wamz .02 so owcmm ozu mo one no use uuowum axon .o3 s5 N .oz an N H.m.umoov .Hm mH5ms 97 .voucaoo mums gnaw whoa ooc.~ unwed u< .N I sm.Nm Hmuoa o.mIm.m I mH.Nm .3mH< m.NHIm.NH I oo.o mm5m .o o.mmIo.Nm I NN.o umo .mmH o.mNIo.mH I mN.o .usoo H.NH I no.o .us .3s m.NmIo.o I mN.o 5mHoumo m.NHIo.s I mH.N mmm5HH=m mmNHHINNm m.mmIo.o I no.« sumo .sHs omIsuo5m o.mNIm.o I mm.m .5mme .H msIsmue o.oNIo.H I sN.H .3m .53 om«.m .H «NIHHHo muH53 m« I NN.sm Hmuoe I I HH.m .3mHm I I No.NN mm5m .o I I mH.o .NmHoo I I mm.o umo .sNH I I «m.o .msom I I oN.o .5HHHmo I I mo.o .uo .3s I I ms.o .5o .us I I «o.o .5m .Hs I I mm.o. .5o .» NmsH I I sm.sH sumo .mu5 NHIxuo5m I I cc.o .sww: .z .H ooonhm I I mm.m .5mmm .H «sNIsmuu I I «o.m .mm .53 Nmm«.N .uu mmmIHHHo swam couoo soumo mowooom noumo Hmooa some oxma mo oamz .oz m5u so m5u so mama so owsmm .u3 an N .oz so N was uuowwm H.m.umooo .Hm mH5ma 98 No.sm mm.«m Hmuou o.sH HN.o mN.o .uaom m.mH ss.Nm H«.mN sumo s.«H NN.«H mm.m .umo .5o o.m HN.o mN.o mmm5HHmm Hm.sH«o mNNNNINNNm uHo>ummms m.mH «N.o sm.o .sm .53 mus .H «NImsss smsmHHos n« I No.Nm Hmuos N.N I NN.N mm5m .o H.NH I «m.H .umHoo N.oN I mm.o umo m.mN I s«.o .ssom o.mH I NN.N .5HHHso m.s I mm.o .us .3s H.NH I m«.m .umo .5o «.s I ms.mH .5o .us H.m I so.m .5o .Hm m.s I m«.H .5m .» m.oN I m«.m sumo mNNsHNOH H.oH I mH.o .mm .sm .H HImsss H.mH I mm.o .5mmm .H mIsmue m.mH I om.mH .sm .53 mom .H mIHHHo msmummmz «« on m soumo soumo mofiooom nouoo annoy mum oxma mo oaoz .02 no owomm o:u no one mo use uqumm 03mg .u3 s5 N .oz s5 N H.m.umooo .Hm mH5me 99 NN.ms mH.mm Hmuos I «m.mm mm.mH .osos I m«.m mN.H umo .msH I NN.«N «s.« sumo I «o.H NN.H .umo .5o I I N«.N .5m .us I HN.H NN.H .5mms HN.HNHV smNHN.HN\oH I om.mN s«.om .sm .53 Ho .uu som.HIHHHo mm.oN om.«m Hmuoe I os.oN ms.H sumo I sN.o sm.o mmm5HH=m I oN.N «m.N .5mms H«.mmo NN\«H\m I N«.N« HN.«N .2m .53 mmN .u5 HIxmo5m mmos souuoz m« I mm.« Hmuos H.NH I Nc.o umo .m5m o.NN I Nm.N sumo «mNN.H\m o.m I Ns.H mmm5HHss mNo.m mumm m.sIm5Hmm smumsH N« mN.NN mm.mm Hmuoe c.NN NN.«H «N.o sumo H.s I NN.H mmm5HHmo N.HH «m.HN cm.«H .5mms HN.««NV mmNmN.mN\« m.«H Hs.H« Ns.mH .3m .53 No« .mu5 mm.mIaoo5m mHssmsuo5u m« when noose noumo mowooem noumo Heuoa mama used «0 oaoz .02 no omnmm on» no onu no use uuowwm oxen J: .3 N .oz .3 N A.u.uooov .H< wanes 100 NN.N« Hmuos I I ««.« sumo oNNsN.mN\« N.N I «o.sm mmm5HHms .H NIsmue I I «N.o .mm .53 mNH .H NImNss I sm.mH Hmuou m.mN I sH.o .uaos o.mH I mH.o umo .m5m oN\«\m N.oH I sN.mH mmm5HHms .H NNIsmus N.NN I m«.o .3m .53 smm.N mam mass mH5umz Hm «N.NN Ns.mN Hmuoo N.mH NN.HH sN.m sumo m.HH o«.o Nm.o umo .5o m.s om.o no.0 mmm5HHsm m.«H mm.o Nm.o .mm .sm m.mH sN.s« HH.NH .5mms HN.mm«o NNNN.m\m ummammsosaH s.«H oN.m os.N .mm .53 mam .H NHImxss mHNumum on I HH.HN Hmuou N.NN I m«.N umo .mmH s.oH I NN.oH sumo m.«H I Hm.o .mm .sm mN\m\m m.oN I mm.H .5mms mu5 m.HIsmo5m N.HH I os.m .sm .53 NNN .H «Imxss mHos ms: s« moan Sousa noumo moaooem noumo Hmuoh some oxma mo mamz .oz so owomm mnu mo ecu no use uuommm mama .u3 s5 N .oz s5 N A.v.ucoov .H< OHame 101 I Nm.ss Hmuoo N.NIm.m I «N.HH .omHoo o.HNIH.s I Ho.«m sumo .oo moumo I I Nm.o .5o .Hm oNNNHNH m.oHIs.s I «m.o .5mms .mu5 NN.NI5mo5m s.oHIm.N I mm.N .3m .53 NHN .us mNHIHHHo I oN.Nm Hmuou o.HNIo.NH I oo.m .uaom o.sNIc.m I om.mm sumo o.NHIo.« I om.OH mmm5HH=m .oo somsmmo o.HHIo.m I o«.o .mmmm .z oNsHI.amm o.mHIo.HH I om.o .5mms N Ixoo5m umsHs o.sHIo.m I s«.s .sm .53 com N Imsss mmmuo mm m«.mm NN.Nm Hmuou I NN.N Hs.o .usom I s«.mm NN.N sumo Ho.HNo NNNsHNN I Ns.HN «m.«« .5mms oHH .u5 mm.onoo5m Nm.om om.NH Hmuou N.NH mm.NH om.N sumo I Nm.« oN.N mmm5HH=s I mm.sN os.o .5mms Ho.NNo NNNsHNN I NN.NH oN.N .mm .53 NN .H NImsss sOHso Nm moan :oumo soumo mowoonm noumo Amuoa oust axed mo oamz .02 no owomm one no one no mam uuomwu axed .53 .3 N 62 s5 N A.m.u5ooo .Hm mH5ms 102 I cc.m¢ Houoa N.HN I ~q.m~ vmnm .c m.oH I @O.NH sumo wh\o~\m «.mH I mm.~ .3m .53 and .mu: m.HIxoonm oo.wnm I Hmuoa I oo.ma I .uvHoU ouom I oo.~m I tuna .u use amazon I oo.omm I sumo cu mounwwm I oo.« I umo .50 qs\¢a\m I oo.¢ I .wwom uaoaumoua ucoavooooaH I oo.o I .nm .33 Hmouaoso xoom umam mm Hw.ow Nc.mm Hmuoe o.m~Io.q mm.oq Ho.mm sumo o.oH «H.c oH.o .cm .um o.q No.o ca.o .nm .Hm o.a o~.o ~m.¢ .nm .> o.mHIo.o oN.o cq.a .3mm: .2 .oo mousoz o.NNIo.N oN.«m NN.HH .5mms Hs.Ncmo HNNHmIoNNN o.mHIo.m cq.n wq.NH .:m .33 Nae .mu: No.~Ixoonm cm.om no.mo Hmuoa o.mNIo.mH oo.Nm No.0 sumo o.eIo.m mm.~ NN.c coonaaom o.HHIo.m mm.m mH.HH .smwm .z .00 museum; o.qHIo.m 0m.N cm.oa .svom Ac.NNHV HN\m~INH\m uo>um o.cHIo.¢ om.m~ mo.- .sm .n3 com .mu: no.meoo:m :amme am moan oMMuMM sumoww mouooem nooeo Hmuos ouov mama mo oamz oxmm uo owomm was uuowmm .us a N .3 .3 N A.v.ucoov .a< wanes 103 I Nm.om Hmuou o.oN I mo.NN sumo «.m I sm.o« .5o .um moNsH\« m.mH I «m.c .5mms .H NHIsmuu H.«H I sm.oH .3m .53 NNm msm mass mm.oo Hmuou o.oN I HN.NN sumo a.m I No.ma .nm .Hm oo\oH.mH\N H.m I Hm.m .5o .u .H oImxss usmamssosaH s.mH I «m.oH .5m .53 omH .uu omNIHHHo ammuo ssoum Na whom umo amazon om.smN I Hmuou 5H mmusmHs I oN.HmN I sumo ms\oH\m I GO . m I GGOSHHDQ UQGEuMMHH I om.m I .2m .53 HmoHam5o NN.No cN.«N Hmuou I Hm.sm N«.mm sumo m.m «N.N sm.cH .5m .u Hm.NNV NNNHNNs I Nm.o sm.c .3m .53 NmN .H NImsss m«.mN mm.«m Hmuou I oH.o NH.o .umo .5o NNNNNIoNNN N.m «o.mN Nm.«m .5o .u HN.«Nmo .H mHIsmuu I Nm.o oo.o .mm .53 msm.H mam mxss mums on onus noooo noumo mouooam soumo Hence some oxma mo mamz .oz m5u so m5u uo memo uo owes“ .u3 he N .02 up N was uuommm H.m.usooo .Hm mHsmu 104 whom use mmcnoa :« mouomah I oo.«mN I Hmuou NNNNNoH I oo.oon I sumo uooaumouh I oo.«N I mumsoso HmsHam5o I Hn.mH Hmuou N.oN I NN.N sumo N.«H I HN.« .umo .5o m.m I oH.N mmm5HHss mNNNNIHNNN N.«H I Hm.N .mm .53 mNs .H NHImass mHHH>mHHmm so I mH.Hs Hmuou mNNNINNm s.«N I om.o .usos .H NNIsmuu o.N I oo.cs .5o .u mNs.N msm mass omHmsHu mm I mo.oN Hmuou o.oN I mm.o .osos o.sH I sm.m sumo m.N I on.H .5o .us mNNoNINNN m.s I «N.HH .5o .u .H NmIsmuu o.NH I «s.N .5m .53 NOH.N mam mass usmu mm ouum noumo noumo mouomom sauna Hmuoe menu axed mo mamz .oz m5u us m5u so mme uo owomm .u3 he N .oz an N can uuowwm H.m.umooo .Hm mHsmu APPENDIX B HEAVY METALS IN FISH FROM THE GRAND RIVER, KALAMAZOO RIVER (MDRROW POND), RAISIN RIVER AND TITTABAWASSEE RIVER The data compiled in this table was taken from Hesse and Evans (1972). Abbreviations used for heavy metals are as follows: Cu copper Ni nickel Zn zinc Cr chromium Cd cadmium Hg mercury Pb lead As arsenic 105 106 I I I mood moév H.NH «.cv m6 sumo HN I I 88 8.3 N.o o.NH «.3 N8 msHs H I I I 8.3 8.3 es «.3 so umsmsm I I I 8.3 88v o.NH «.ov o.H sumo «H I I I 8.3 88v o.NH «.ov N.o umxosm I I I 8.3 88v so «.5 «.o sumo H I I I 8.3 86v 9m «.3 no sumo NH I I I 88v 88V 92 «.8 no sumo HH I I N.o 86v 88v o.s «.ov «.o umsusm I I I 8.3 8.8 v o.NH «.ov H.o sumo S I I I 8.3 8.3 9: «.3 no sumo s I I 8.8 28 o.H 0.2 «.8. m.H mmm5HHsm I I I 88 v m8 so «.3 NH mmms I I I 8.3 8.3 so «.3 N.o umsmmm I I I 8.3 88 o o.HH «.ov H.H. sumo m I I I 8.3 88v o.HH «.ov N.o sumo N I I I 88v m8 o.NH «.ov H.H umsmsm I I I 8.3 88v o.HH «.3 no sumo m I I I 8.3. 8.3 so «.8 N8 353.4. I I I 8.3 88v o.HH «.8 m8 sumo m. I I I 88v 8.3 so «.3 H5 sumo « I I I 88v 8.3 c.HH «.ov H.H. sumo N I I I 88v 8.3 9: «.oV «.o sumo N I I I 88 v 8.3 es «.ov N.o 8.525 I I I 8.ov 8.o v o.HH «.3 N.o mmms I I I 8.o v 8.o v o.m «.3 No sumo H oNoH hash .ao>mm vcouo ou conxomh .uo>um oomuo mm 5s N3 mo uo 5N Hz so mmHmmsm soHumum Aasov mamas: .Huo>um oonmmamn Imuuue was uo>um :Nmfimm.aocom aouuozv uo>um ooumamHmM .um>um ocmuo one scum noun a“ mamuoa h>mom .Hm MHAMB 107 I 8.Hv 88 H8v 8N 8.3 m8 sumo o 8.Hv o.Hv 8H8 H8v 88N 8.H v m8 sumo m I 8.3 88 H8v 8N 8.Hv m8 sumo I o.Hv H884 -H8v 88H o.Hv m8 mHssmuo 8H» 8.3 N88 H8v o.N 8.3 m8 mmuo5mms o.Hv 8.3 NN8 H8v 88 8.3 N8 83s mum5uuoz o.Hv o.Hv NN8 H8v 88H 8.3 I $2 9:53 93 o.Hv 88 H8v 88H 8.: I 83 some 8.3 8.: NN8 H8O 88H o.Hv I 8% 5usoaHHmam « 8.3 OH v 88 H8« 88H o.Hv N.N mmuo5mms 8.3 o.H v NH8 H8v 88H o.Hv o8 mussmuo I 8.Hv 88 H8« 88 9: m8 82 some 8.3 8.H « 88 H8". 88 o.H« m8 sumo m HN¢H .mw I ow hash .mouucsoo smcfiwom use oomavuz .uo>um oomoamnmuuuh m8v «8 H8v 88H N8 v N8 mst .5582 N84. NH8 H8v 88 N8 v m8 umo—38:53 m8v o8 H8v o8 N8v m8 sumo «z HNmH mash .ooom souuoz .uo>um oonEmHom I I 88m 8.8 «8v 8. umxmso I I 88V 93 «8v 8 sumo I I 88v m8 «8v 8 umsosm I I 88v 88 «8» N sumo I 88 88v o.NH «8v « 5388 I 88 88 v o.NH «8 v o umsosm mm N3 mo 5N Hz so- mmHomsm Nanny maouoz II I». 1J1i|1i A.v.uooov .Hm Odnmh (Cont'd.) Table Bl. Metals (ppm) Ni Zn Cr Cd Hg Pb As Cu Species Station 4.1.0 CO HH VV < 1.0 0.05 0.0 0.3 I-II-i CO VV < 0.1 ('0.1 CO Nd) 12.0 ( 1.0 1 1 MQQ COO Carp Carp Carp River Raisin, August 1971 108 mmmmm CCCOC VVvVJ 0.03 0 0.30 (0.01 0.35 Hv-lI-II-II-i CCCOC VvVVVVV HHH COO VVV <:0.1 ('0.1 7.0 I—ImC lfil‘l‘ 6.2 I<0.2 I(0.2 O 0.2 <0.2 <10.2 4'0.2 0 0 <'0.2 Largemouth bass Northern pike Rock bass Crappie Bullhead CO H (0.2 I40.2 Bullhead Rock bass O ,_I v (0.1 .(0,1 6.0 5.7 <0.2 <0.2 4(0.2 I<0.2 (0.5 (1.0 (1.0 (1.0 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.21 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.18 0.38 0.02 0.50 0.04 0.03 0.65 (_0.1 <0.2 Smallmouth bass (0.5 <0.5 <:0.5 ((3.1 (0.1 (0.1 .(0.1 4.9 (0.2 Smallmouth bass Rock bass I(0.1 <0.2 4.9 (0.2 4.0.2 10 5.9 (0.1 (1.0 <0.2 Smallmouth bass Carp <.0.5 I<0.S 0.5 (1.0 (0.1 (0.1 I<0.l 7.0 13.0 <0.2 <:0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 11 40.5 40.5 1. (1.0 (1. (0.1 (0.1 (0.1 Im mam mono: aoum sexes .H 88v 8.: NH8 H8 v H8J N8 N8 v N8« 32 5usoaHHmam 8N m8 v 8.Hv 38 H8 0 H80 s8 N8v N8o mmm5 5usoaHHmam m8 v o.H « NH8 H8 0 H84 8.N N8 v N8v mmms 58s «N mm 5s m3 mo uo 5N Hz so mmHomsm soHumuo mammvmamuoz H.m.usooo .Hm mHsmu APPENDIX C CONCENTRATIONS OF CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON INSECTICIDES AND POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN FISH FROM THE GRAND RIVER AND THE KALAMAZOO RIVER The data compiled for this table was taken from Willson and Hesse (1973), and Hess and Willson (1972). 110 111 moa.o NH~.o NwH.o moo.o Noo.o omo.o moo.o Nmo.o umxosm mounz NN mHH.o HmN.o oN«.o oma.o ma~.o HNo.o MHo.o wNm.u umxosm muuez Hm NNN.o HHN.o «mm.o Oma.o omH.o ooo.o Noo.o «NN.H umxoom mousz «H Nma.o NsH.o mm~.o sso.o «mH.o «mo.o. moo.o oNN.o umxoom muons MH so~.o omH.o om~.o Nso.o w«H.o o«o.o moo.o «NN.H umxosm moan: OH ~oo.o Noo.o Nmo.o muo.o ~«o.o «No.o moo.o H«o.a uoxosm mouse a moo.o moo.o moH.o mmo.o m«o.o smo.o moo.o mNN.o umxosm moan: o Hmo.o NNH.o Noa.o mmo.o smo.o o~o.o Noo.o osm.o uoxosm moan: m moo.o mH~.o mma.o moo.o woo.o «No.0 moo.o coo.o umxosm moans q ~N~.o on.o smm.o Hsomo moH.c «oa.o moo.o omw.m sumo «N oNo.o «mm.o NmH.o mmo.c NNo.o «mo.c ~oc.o mem.H sumo Nu woo.o omm.o msH.o ch.c moo.o omo.o ~oo.o me.m sumo Hm H-.o Nou.o «m~.o moc.o omH.o moo.o ~oo.o mmo.H sumo «H mmH.o o-.o omu.o mmo.o ooH.o NNo.c moo.o HmN.o sumo mH m«o.H som.o om~.H «NH.o m«<.o Nco.o moo.c omm.~ sumo NH acm.o mm~.o Hom.o coo.c mwa.o mma.c moc.o smm.o sumo HH ama.o oHH.o oom.o oqo.o oHH.o coo.o coo.o eon.H sumo ca mom.o o-.o wH«.o sHH.o mN~.o «so.o moo.c «N.o sumo m Ns~.o mNN.o mom.o soH.o oo~.o «No.o moo.o mHm.H sumo w mHH.o moo.o mcH.o «No.o ooo.o Hoo.o Noo.o smo.o sumo N swo.o moo.o omo.o oHo.o omo.o oHo.o «oo.o «ma.o sumo o coo.o moH.o «No.o suo.o m«o.o «Ho.o moo.o ~m.o sumo m o-.o mmm.o Hmm.o Nmo.o oNH.o mNo.o oHo.o «o.a sumo « mm~.o mN«.o Hom.o «mo.o mm~.o Nmo.o «No.0 «~.~ sumo m Nmo.o HHH.o omH.o oNo.o mNo.o wmo.o Noo.o oo.H sumo N cmo.o OHo.ko omo.o NNo.o ooo.o moo.o «oo.o No.H sumo H Ammaa mmmmm mam somaawzv um>Hm osmuo mmuomuuoo mos ass ass msu ‘1 mos 5HumHmHs umo N mmHomsm HmoHumum ass Hmuoe omomauumm Hmuoe .AHN¢H .saoo .vcos souuozv um>um ooumamHmM m£u cam .AonH .manh .smwfizofiz .sm>mm osmuo ou somxomwv um>wm osmuo as» scum swam :H omuammma Am.momv mahcmsswn omumsauoanosaos mom mmououuommoa :onumoouosn omumsuuoaso mo AoSwNoB um: oxxweQ moouumuusmosoo .Ho manma 112 .emNH uoaoou< cos: ommmm .N .msoHusHuomoo sowumum uom Amssav mmmmm mom semaaus ou ummmm .H I N88.NH 888.8 I NH8.8 H8N.8 8H8.8 8N.H msus sum5uuoz I N88.8 N8H.8 I 8«8.8 888.8 «88.8 88.8 umsosm muH53 I NN8.8 NHN.8 I 88H.8 888.8 888.8 8«.H sumo «z Athfl fiOmHHflwa mafia 0mm05% vfiom 3OHHOZ 8H0>HM~ CONN-Edda 88N.8 N88.8 «N8.H 8NN.8 «8«.8 N«8.8 «88.8 888.H muHs 8H 8«N.8 88H.H 8N8.H H88.8 «8«.8 888.8 .8H8.8 88H.8 5mHuumo HN NNH.8 N8H.8 88H.8 8«8.8 N88.8 «88.8 888.8 H88.H mmmm 8 NN88 8H8.8 v NN88 «H8.8 888.8 N888 H888 v 8888 mmmm H 8N8.8 «H8.8 888.8 8H8.8 8H8.8 8H8.8 N88.8 8HN.8 mmm5HH88 8 8«8.8 8H8.8 v 8«8.8 8H8.8 888.8 888 H888 v 888 .8 mmm5HH88 H 888.8 88«.8 8«N.8 8N8.8 88H.8 N88.8 888.8 88«.H umsosm muH53 «N mmuomuumo mos H88 H88 . m8u 888 sHumHmH8 umo N mmHomsm HsoHumum u88 Hmuou mmumsHumm Hmuou A N.m.usooo .Ho mH5mu APPENDIX D THE COMMERCIAL HARVEST 0F ROUGH FISH FROM INLAND LAKES IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN The data presented in this table was provided by Vern Hacker from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Floyd Hen- nagir from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 113 Table D1. Species and volumes (pounds) of rough fish harvested from inland lakes in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Minnesota Wisconsin Species 1976 1974 1975 1976 Carp 2,247,760 1,571,254 1,233,755 3,411,323 Buffalo 940,846 325,443 798,679 1,319,215 Bullhead 1,129,621 21,400 19,960 6 Sheepshead 175,462 1,436,527 1,140,290 1,597,339 Suckers/Redhorse 141,226 16,689 13,694 12,925 Perch 16,437 - Burbot 662 11,831 515 10,841 White bass 5,505 No. cisco 7,378 Bowfin 6,247 6,150 9 14 Gar 500 213 70 Quillback 17,266 47,180 89,566 Gizzard Shad 4,350 TOTAL 4,671,144 3,412,410 3,254,295 6,441,299 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Bailey, R. M., J. E. Fitch, E. S. Herald, E. A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. R. Robins, and W. B. Scott. 1970. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Am. Fish. Soc., Spec. Pub. No. 6, 150 pp. Buck, D. B., M. A- Whitacre, and C. F. Thoits III. 1960. Some exper- iments in the baiting of carp. J. Wildl. Manage. 24(4): 357-364. Crowe, W. R. 1946. Coarse fish removal, Grand Lake, Presque Isle County, 1945-46. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Institute Fish. Res. Rept. No. 1045, 3 pp. . 1947. Sucker removal and demonstration netting on certain larger lakes in Michigan. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Insti- tute Fish. Res. Rept. No. 1119, 9 pp. 1949. Sucker removal and demonstration netting, 1947-1948. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Institute Fish. Res. Rept. No. 1226, 8 pp. Galloway, J. E., and N. R. Kevern. 1976. Michigan suckers; their life histories, abundance, and potential for harvest. Mich. Sea Grant Prog., Ann Arbor, MICHU-SG-206, Tech. Rept. No. 53, 46 pp. Grant, J. 1977. Water quality and biological survey of Manistee Lake, 1973 and 1975. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Water Qual. Div. Pub. No. 4833-9310, 56 pp. Grice, F. 1958. Effect of removal of panfish and trashfish by fyke nets upon fish populations of some Massachusettes' ponds. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 87:108-115. Hacker, V., Supervisor - warm water Fish Management, Wis. Dept. Nat. Resour., Oshkosh, Wis. Hennagir, F. 1975. 'Net returns' from our waters. Minn. Volunteer. 38 (22(1),: 5645 9.. Commercial Fisheries Coordinator, Minn. Dept. Nat. Resour., St. Paul, Minn. 115 116 Hesse, J. L., and E. D. Evans. 1972. Heavy metals in surface waters, sediments and fish in Michigan. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Bur. Water Manage., Water Resour. Comm., 58 pp. and R. Willson. 1972. Evaluation of the aquatic environment of the Kalamazoo River watershed, Part A - Biological Survey. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Bur. Water Manage., Water Resour. Comm., 87 pp. Jester, D. B. 1976. Production of rough or commercial fishes in Elephant Butte Lake, New Mexico. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105(2):222-23l. Johnsen, P. B., and A. D. Hasler. 1977. Winter aggregations of carp (Qyprinus carpio) as revealed by ultrasonic tracking. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106(6):556-559. Johnson, F. H. 1977. Responses of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) populations to removal of white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) from a Minnesota lake, 1966. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:1633-1642. Laarman, P. W. 1976. The sport fisheries of the twenty largest inland lakes in Michigan. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour. Fish. Div., Fish. Res. Rept. No 1843, 198 pp. Lagler, K. F. 1956. Freshwater fishery biology. W. M. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, Iowa, 421 pp. Lundgren, R. 1976. Fish taint studies on Mona Lake, Muskegon Lake, White Lake, Pere Marquette Lake, Manistee Lake and Betsie Lake. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Bur. Water Manage., Water Resour. Comm., 37 pp. 1978. Fish taint studies on Portage, Ford and Belleville Lakes, washtenaw and Wayne Counties, November 1977 and January 1978. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Envir. Prot. Bur., Water Qual. Div., 14 pp. Miller, N. J. 1952. Carp: control and utilization. Wis. Conserve. Bull. 17(5):l-7. Moyle, J. B. 1949. Fish-population concepts and management of Minne- sota lakes for sport fishing. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. Trans. 14:283-294. , J. H. Kuehn, and C. R. Burrows. 1950. Fish-population and catch data from.Minnesota lakes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 78:163-175. Mraz, D., and E. L. Cooper. 1957. Natural reproduction and survival of carp in small ponds. J. Wildl. Manage. 21(1):66-69. 117 Neess, J. C., W. T. Helm, and C. W. Threinen. 1957. Some vital statis- tics in a heavily exploited pOpulation of carp. J. Wildl. Manage. 23(3):279-292. Peterson, E. T. and R. A. Drews. 1957. Some historical aspects of the carp, with special reference to Michigan. Mich. Dept. Conserve., Fish. Div. Pamphlet No. 23, 5 pp. Peterson, L. I. 1958. Improvements in carp fishing. Wis. Conserve. Bull. 23(6):7-ll. Rawson, D. S. and C. A. Elsey. 1950. Reduction in the longnose sucker population of Pyramid Lake, Alberta, in an attempt to improve angling. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 78:13-31. Reynolds, D., Habitat Developement Specialist, Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Lansing, Mich. Ricker, W. E., and J. Gottschalk. 1941. An experiment in removing coarse fish from a lake. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 70:382-390 Rose, E. T., and T. Moen. 1951. Results of increased fish harvest in Lost Island Lake. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 80:50-55. and . 1953. The increase in game-fish populations in East Okoboji Lake, Iowa, following intensive removal of rough fish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 82:104-114. Schneberger, E. 1952. Report of the standing committees, Committee on Hydrobiology and Fish Culture: Utilization and harvest of rough fish and other surplus fishes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 81:316-317. Schneider, J. C. 1973. The standing crop of fish in Michigan lakes. Mich. Dept. Nat. Res. Fish.Div., Fish. Res. Rept. No. 1794, 35 pp. Schnicke, G. T., District Fishery Biologist, District 7, Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Mio, Mich. Schrouder, J. D. 1972. Evaluation of the aquatic environment of the Kalamazoo River watershed, Part C - Fisheries Survey. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour. Fish. Div., 53 pp. Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 184, 966 pp. Shepherd, R. B., Fishery Habitat Biologist, District 11, Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Imlay City, Mich. Shumway, D. L., and J. R. Palensky. 1973. Impairment of the flavor of fish by water pollutants. Ecol. Res. Series, EPA-R3-73-010, Washington D. C. 118 Sigler, W. F. 1958. The ecology and use of carp in Utah. Utah. St. Univ., Logan Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull. 405, 63 pp. Spitler, R. J., District Fishery Biologist, District 14, Michigan Dept. Nat. Resour., Pontiac, Mich. Strand, R. F. and W. J. Scidmore. 1969. Sonar - an aid to under-ice rough fish seining. Minn. Dept. Conserve. Spec. Pub. 68, 35 pp. Swee, U. B. and H. R. McCrimmon. 1966. Reproductive biology of the carp, Qyprinus carpio L., in Lake St. Lawrence, Ontario. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95(4):372-380. Threinen, C. W. and W. T. Helm. 1954. Experiments and observations designed to show carp destruction of aquatic vegetation. J. Wildl. Manage. 18(2):247-250. Trimberger, J. 1974. Chemical reclamation report, Lake Macatawa - 1974. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour. Fish Div., 10 pp. 1975. Evaluation of angler-use benefits from chemical recla- mation of lakes and streams in Michigan. ‘13: Symposium on rehabilitation of fish populations with toxicants. N. C. Div. Am. Fish. Soc., Spec. Pub. No. 4:60-65. , District Fishery Biologist, District 9, Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Grand Rapids, Mich. Willson, R. 1973. Fish taint studies on the Grand River, Jackson to Grand Haven, Michigan, July-August, 1970. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Bur. Water Manage., Water Resour. Comm., 28 pp. and J. Hesse. 1973. Toxic materials in Grand River fish, Jack- son to Grand Haven, Michigan, July-August, 1970. Mich. Dept. Nat. Resour., Bur. Water Manage., Water Resour. Comm., 11 pp.