AN INVENTORY AND STUDY OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAJOR RESOURCES OF MARGUETTE COUNTY. MICHIGAN TI'mls Ior IIm Doqru of pII. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Roger Lawrence Norden 1960 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN INVENTORY AND STUDY OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAJOR RESOURCES OF MARQUETTE COUNTY, MICHIGAN presented by Roger Lawrence Norden has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor's degree in Philosophy LII/{hirl .T" :‘I“ W Major professor Date April 18, 1960 0-169 OVFRDUE WINFIS ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. )FEB 2719335 . m a ”A9311 $99 A . ‘ ‘I L. .4 .—‘r t 0 up]? . p v. A 0 1—13,.) f:" ‘H LI... b 7"“‘ v 7 "Tf‘."" N‘. . \JLLILQHAJ ,\ ”)4 3,- h‘l ‘..it, AL ‘7 .A« L t‘lhl‘" 4 :‘ vh' -. J - ‘T‘Qj? §‘ 1" (J x): « - 9 ,- T ‘ 777 c»; J . 1.1 3. ~) 5-1 n ~v‘\ 8 p \- -1V J. k. ‘7‘ [\Au folk/II U"\ 1“ 3361 I Vagfil‘ ‘4“ .\A_J R A ) Pr , :iIZ llvvvr‘fi‘w nv A\l‘~/¢\J. 1'. ‘ A'.ALJ ‘ E f - Chh;.e‘ 7“ I V I ‘. k‘v ' V" a .144 ‘r V ‘ I A F" .L .I' C’L ,2. r‘ “ " k A ‘.. .A .117”: ‘1 a; V\Y\1“. g_~ ’ .A — A . fr VI 1 "i." )_, . LJV\ ‘ e. Borer L wrence Norden The manageoent or wise use of our natural resources is one of the major problems of the world today. An area can realize l“. its potential ties only through planning based on a knowledge of the nature and extent of its natural resources obtained from a detailed survey of their major resources. The major resources of Marquette County with which this survey is concerned include the minerals,water, soils, fish, Wildlife, forests, and the human resource. The present status of the resource in Marquette County is given in this report along with the history of its development, and the economic implications for the future. This survey could serve as a guide in the future planning and utilization of the resources of the county. By providing concise information on the major resources of the county, this report should help further the instruction of conservation in the schools of the area. Marquette County, located in the north-central part of the ibrthern Peninsula of Michigan, is Michigan's largest county. It contains 1,341 square miles with sixty-eight miles of shore- line on Lake Superior. The population of the county, according to the 1950 census was £7,651“ It was estimated that on January 1, 1958 there was a pOpulation of 30.500 in the county. The major findinggcfi‘this report show that Marquette County is bountifully endowed with natural resources, particularly iron, forests, water, fish, wildlife, and recreational features. LU orer Lawrence Norden Within its borders are found more inland lakes (833) and more miles of stream (1,906) than are found in any other coun y of Michigan. The abundant supply of fresh water for industrial g . county 8 principal 10n;-range so V \0 purposes represents one of th« attractions for industry. Natural gas is foreseen as a future source of power. Iron ore provides the main source of incone in the county. More than 275 million long tons of ore have been produced on the Marquette Range since iron was first discovered here in 18A4. It is believed that the iron ore reserves in this county are ufficient for many decades of continued mining activity, espe- (0 kb cially with the continued research in the field of tenef ciation. d (I) More than ninety per cent of the county is consider forest land. Of this forest area, commercial forest land occupies 1,121,300 acres. This provides forest products, con- siderable areas for wildlife production, and recreation. The tourist and resort industry is rapidly becoming one of the major sources of income in the county. I“Vt“~ ‘5 ecause of the topography, sandy soils, and the short )iow- LU ing season, much of the land is not suited to intensive agri- culture. The principal agricultural enterprises are dairying .- + 4.. -i . ~ . A . . 1 +9.- and rotates s n31 tst -ctei exfiiffivi in ..x ‘a county, only three \ I and one-half per cent are employed in agriculture. Marquette County was the first in Michigan to produce a one-thousand Eu hel per acre yield of potatoes. (0 In conclusion, this is a county rich in natural resources, scenic beauty, historic lore, and containing a vast potential for future development. AN INVENTORY AND STUDY OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAJOR RESOURCES OF MARQUETTE COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY Roger Lawrence Norden A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1960 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. Gilbert w. Mouser for his friendly encouragement and guidance as chairman of his Doctoral Committee. Particular gratitude is also extended to the other mem- bers of the Doctoral Committee, Dr. Peter I. Tack and Dr. Gerald w. Prescott, for their time and helpful suggestions and assistance. Other Michigan State University employees to whom the writer is indebted includes: Professor Ivan F. Schneider, Soil Science Department; Dr. Robert w. McIntosh, Hotel, Res- taurant and Institutional Management; Melvin Nyquist, Mar- quette County Agricultural Agent; Roy Skog, Extension Specie - ist in Forestry; Dr. Donald Meaders, Assistant Professor in Teacher Education; and Paul Schneider, Draftsman. The writer greatly appreciates the cooperation received from the Michigan Department of Conservation without which the compilation of data for this study would have been impossible. The writer is grateful for making files available for this research on Marquette County and for the vast quantities of information received. For these favors special acknowledgment is due to Regional Chief Dorias J. Curry, Marquette; GeOIOgists Helen M. Martin, Arthur E. Slaughter, Robert Kelley, H. J. Hardenberg; Game Biologists William Laycock, 110 H. Bartlett, 11 CL A. Ammann, David H. Jenkins, Rs 7 u Inond ”. Schofield, Lester L. Eberhardt, Ben C. Jenkins, and M. L. Petockey; Fish Special- ists James A. Scully and Clifford Long; Lake and stream Tech- nician Arthur Feldhauser; ForestensDonald Zettle, Clayton School y, and Arne Metsa; Field Administration employees Bernard A. Stephanski, John Anguilm, John Chriske, Howard Houlmont, John Kanppinen, and John Rossi; Regional Park Super- visor Glenn C. Gregg; Conservation Education Specialists Rodney Smith, Paul Challancin, and R. D. Burroughs; and Region- al Business Manager Dolf Stindt. The writer is also indebted for information received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and especially to William Marquette, Fishery Research Biologist, who compiled data on lamprey control for this study. Gratitude is expressed for ideas and information secured from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and from the U.S. Forest Service. At Northern Michigan College, Marquette, the writer ex- presses his appreciation to Professor Georee S. Butler, Head of the Conservation and Agriculture Department, Rollin Thoren, Ornithologist, and Taisto Niemi, Librarian. For the use of office space to compile data, special thanks goes to Charles E. Dora, and to my family and friends ,. 4. graceful. who helped in many ways, the writer is forever iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -------------------_-------_-_---_---_-_ LIST or TABLES ------------------—----------------------- LIST or FIertss ---------------------------------------_- LIST or ILLUSTnATIONS ----------------------------------- Chapter I. INTRODUCTION -----~----------------~---—----------- The Problem, Its Description and Inportance Previous Research Procedure, Materials, and Methods Location of Marquette County Size of County Topography Climate Populatio. of Marquette County 3 II. THE HISTORY OF — QIL‘YETTE COUI‘ITY ‘-’---*---------n-_ 0;! A b Workers Pre-historic Met 1 u tte County Indians of Narq Early Exploration The Discovery of Iron Ore Mining and Early Developments 9 M 8 III. THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF MARQUETTE COUNTY ---- IV. ROWTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPKENT OF MARQUETTE COUNTY Developments to Improve Transportation and Shipping State Institutions at Marquette Headquarters for State and Federal Agencies Bay Cliff Health Camp Number Employed in Major Industry Groups Economics of Tourism in Marquette County Economic Side of Movie Filmed in harquette County The Effects of the St. Lawrence Seaway Natural Gas for the Upper Peninsula Atomic Energy for the Upper Peninsula 11 l’\) [U h.) 0\ V. THE GEOLOGY or MARQUETTE COUNTY ~------------------ 45 Archean Era Algonkian Era iv VI. VII. VIII. X. Paleozoic Era Mesozoic Era Cenozoic Era SURFACE FORKATIOHS OF MARQUETTE COUNTY ----------- Rock at or Near the Surface Moraines or Till Outwash and Glacial Channels Sand, Sand Dunes, and Lake Bed Sands NINERALS--A MAJOR RESOURCE OF MARQUETTE COUNTY --- The Iron and Iron Ore of Marquette County Formation of Iron Ore Deposits The Location of the Marquette Iron Range \H I:- 61 Shipments of Iron Ore from the Marquette Iron Range The Beneficiation of Low Grade Ores Gold in Marquette County Other Minerals Found in Marquette County SOIL--A MAJOR RESOURCE OF MARQUETTE COUNTY ------- Soil Soil Classification The Podzol Soil Region Soil Mapping and the Soil Survey Major Soil Associations and Divisions of Harquette County Podzol Region (Non-Limy Materials) Podzol Region (Limy Materials), Podzol Region (Mucks and Pests) Summary of Reconnaissance Soil Survey of Marquette County AGRICULTURE IN i'ARQUETTE COUNTY ---------------- -- Types of Farming Areas Length of Growing Season in Marquette County Agricultural Statistics on Marquette County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee The Soil Bank Program in Marquette County The Marquette County Soil Conservation District FORESTS--A MAJOR RESOURCE OF MARQUETTE COUNTY ---- The Forest Area of Marquette County Commercial Forest Land of Marquette County The Forest Types of Marquette County Timber Species in the Forest Cover Types Timber Volumes Forest Industries in Marquette County Forest Owners ip (J1) \J4 IO} 116 Report on Michigamme State Forest Report on Escanaba River State Forest Forest Diseases and Insect Enemies Forest Fires in Marquette County Forest Prohlems and Recommendations XI. WATER--A MAJOR RESOURCE OF MARQUETTE COUNTY ----- 145 Lake Superior The Inland Lakes of Marquette County The Rivers and Streams of Marquette County Ground Water Problems of Management of the Water Resources XII. FISH-~A MAJOR RESOURCE OF MARQUETTE COUNTY ------ 157 The Fishery Resource Species of Fish Found in Marquette County Trout Fishing in Marquette County Designated Trout Lakes in Marquette County Warm Water Fishing in Marquette County Public Fishing Sites in Marquette County Fish Plantings in Marquette County in 1958 Lake Surveys Conducted in Marquette County Lake and Stream Improvement in Marquette County The Lamprey Problem The Commercial Fish Industry in Marquette County XIII. WILDLIFE-u-A MAJOR RESOURCE or i-fARQUETTE COUNTY -- 193 Wildlife Defined Hunting License Sales Values of the Wildlife Resource Mammals of Marquette County The White-tailed Deer in Marquette County Moose in Marquette County The Black Bear in Marquette County The Bountied Predators Major Small Game Species in Marquette County Fur Trapping in Marquette County Game Law Enforcement in Marquette County Habitat Improvement in Marquette County XIV. THE RECREATIONAL RESOURCES OF MARQUETTE CO”“TY -- 241 UL‘ The Need for Recreation Types of Outdoor Recreation Marquette County's Recreational Facilities XV. CONSERVATION EDUCATION IN MARQUETTE COUNTY ------ 251 Emphasis on Conservation Education Conservation Education in the Schools vi Y 4’5 School and Community Forest Problems in Conservation Education VI. SUEZMARY, COT-ICLUSIONS, AND FUTURE OUTLOOK ------- Sumaary The Future of the Iron Ore Industry The Outlook for Agriculture The Outlook for Forestry The Outlook for the Tourist and Resort Industry Future Expressways and Tourism Effects of Sawyer Air Force Base The Upper Midwest Economic Study Books Public Documents, Reports, and Bulletins Articles and Periodicals Maps Unpublished Material Other Sources vii [0 W \O 270 Table Page 1. Comparative Temperatures of Some Cities ----------- 6 2. Population of Townships and Cities in Marquette County ------------------------ - ---------------- 24 3. Number Employed in Major Industry Groups in Mar- quette County, 1950 ---------------------------- 38 4. Iron Ore Shipments Through 1955. Marquette Iron Range ----- -------- - -------- - -------------- ---~- 67 5. Mining Companies and Location of Mines ------------ 72 6. Tons of Iron Mined and Shipped from the Marquette Range in 1957 ----------- - ---------------------- 73 7. Value of Farm Products Sold in Marquette County, 1954 ----- - --------- — ----------- - --------------- 110 8. Agricultural Trends in Marquette County ----- ------ 111 9. Agricultural and Conservation Practices in Mar- quette County, 1957 -- ---------- - --------------- 113 10. Areas of Forest Types and Stand Size Classes ------ 120 11. Sawmills of Marquette County, 1956 -- -------------- 127 12. Products Cut From Michigamme State Forest, 1956-57- 131 13. Forest Types Found in Michigamme State Forest ----- 132 1A. State Forest Campgrounds in Marquette County ------ 133 15. Timber Products from Escanaba River State Forest -- 134 16. Forest Types Found in Escanaba River State Forest - 136 17. Total Fires and Acreage Burned in Marquette County 138 18. Forest Fire Statistics for 1958 ----- - ------ ------- 139 19. Causes of 1958 Forest Fires in Marquette County --- 139 20. Marquette County's Forest Fire Fighting Equipment Michigan Department of Conservation, July, 1958- 141 viii 21. 28. 29. 30. 31. 41. 2+2. 43. a4. Marquette County Lake Maps ........................ Species Of Fish Found in Marquette County --------- Public Fishing Sites of Marquette County ------- --- Marquette County 1958 Fish Plantings ------- ------- Aquatic Vegetation Found in Lakes in Marquette County ------ ............... - .................. - Lake Trout Taken from Lake Superior, 1950-1956 ---- Total Sea Lamprey Captured in Electromechanical Weirs on Streams Tributary to Lake Superior in Marquette County, Through December 31, 1958 ---- Commercial Fisheries from the Michigan Waters of Lake Superior, 1956-1957 -------- ............... Michigan License Sales for 1950, 1940, 1950 ------- The Mammals of Marquette County --- ................ Peer Hunting Information for Marquette County, 1948-195]. -nn------ ---------- can.-- -------------- Deer Hunting Information for Marquette County, 1952-195? --------------------- c- ---------------- Deeryards of Marquette County and Food Conditions - Bear Kill Statistics (1936-1957) --- ---------- ----- Foxes Bountied for the Ten-year Period 1949-1958 -- Coyotes Bountied for the Ten-year Period 1949-1958 Bobcats Bountied for the Ten-year Period 1949-1958 Wolves Bountied for the Ten-year Period 1949-1958 - Small Game Harvest for Upper Peninsula 1954-1958 -- Some of the Migratory Game Birds Recorded at the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, 1934-1954 ...... The Beaver Harvest for 1950-1959 “““ ""‘ """ ' The Otter Harvest for 1950-1959 ------------------- The Waterfalls of Marquette County -- ------- ------- Conservation Education in the Schools Of Marquette county -anau-c ------ Club--— ------- -------------___ ix 1&8 158 166 168 175 18$ 186 192 193 196 204 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Marquette County ---------- ---------- 2. The Nineteen Political Townships of Marquette County ......................... - ........ ----- 3. Federal and State Highways of Earquette County -- 4. Seclogical Map of iichigan ---- --------------- --- 5- GeOIOglca1 flap of Marquette County ------- ------- 6. Surface Formations of Marquette County ---------- 7. Location of Mines in Marquette County ------- ---- 8. 3011 Regions of Michigan ------------------------ 9. Major Soil Associations of Marquette County ----- 10. Type-Of-Farming Areas in Michigan --------------- 11- Length of Growing Season ------ ------ - ----------- 12. The Three Major Forest Belts of Marquette County- 13. Forest Types of Marquette County ---------------- 14. State and National Forests in Marquette County -- 15. River Basins in Marquette County ---------------- 16. Groundwater Availability in Michigan --- ------- -- 17. Location of Lamprey Weirs in Farquette County --- 15. Deeryards of North Part of Marquette County ----- 19. Deeryards of Southeast Part of Marquette County - 20. Deeryards of Southwest Part of Marquette County - 21. Improved Camping Sites and Other Points of Interest in Marquette County ----- -- ---------- X 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS The Huron Mountains of Marquette County ----------- Winter at Northern Michigan College ~-------------- The Ore Dock in South Marquette Harbor ------------ The Ore Dock in North Marquette Harbor ------------ The SAGE Building at K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base ~- State House of Correction and Branch Prison ------- Cliffs of Bedrock near Marquette ------------------ OUtCPOps of Pre-Cambrian Rock --------------------- The Marquette Iron Range--Mather "B" Mine --------- Iron Mines Near Ishpeming--Cliffs Shaft Mine ------ Loading Ore into Pockets on the Ore Dock ---------- Loading Ore from the Dock into Ore Boat ----------- In the Mather "B" Mine ---------------------------- Pellets of Iron--the Final Product of Beneficiation The Cliff-Dow Chemical Company Uses Cull Hardwood - The Robbins Flooring Mill at Ishpeming ------------ The Cliffs Ridge Ski Area South.of Marquette ------ A lSSO-foot Constam T-Bar Adds to Skiing Pleasure - xi Pag \D \OO 27 27 32 32 55 55 66 66 71 71 76 76 126 126 249 249 I. INTRODUCTION The Problem, It§_Pescrijtion and Importance The management or wise use of our natural resources is one of the major problems of the world today. Each nation, state, county, and community should be concerned about the status of its natural resources. It is the ultimate hope that in time each community and county, each state and nation, will make a detailed survey of its major resources which should guide it in its future plans and utilization of its resources. It was to meet this need for one of the 83 counties of Michigan that this problem, "An Inventory and Study of the Historical DevelOpment of the Major Resources of Marquette County, Michigan”, was undertaken. The people of an area can realize its potentialities only through planning based on a knowledge of the nature and extent of its natural resources, and how they fit in with today's trends and needs. It is hoped that this report will provide a stimulus to the people of this region, as well as those of other regions, in taking a serious look at their natural resources and in making the best decisions regarding their use. This report should be of invaluable assistance in both public and private planning for the future. The major resources of Marquette County with which this report is concerned include the minerals, water, soil, forests, l 2 fish, wildlife and the human resource. The present status of each resource is given along with the history of its develop- ment in the county, and the economic implications for the future. Many of the minor resources which are of great importance in the overall picture were not included in this study. This report should help further the instruction of conservation in the schools of Marquette County, and in the teaching of conservation courses at Northern Michigan College, Marquette, by making available information on the major resources of the county. Previous Research Many agencies and departments, such as the Michigan Department of Conservation, the United States Ge010gica1 Survey, 8011 Service, Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service, have conducted or are conducting studies on some of the resources of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, including Marquette County. An engineering study of the economic resources of Michigan's Upper Peninsula was conducted by Ebasco Services, Incorporated, and submitted to the governor in 1953. No detailed survey, such as this, however, has ever been conducted on Marquette County. Procedure, Materials, and Methods All available reports on the major resources of Marquette County were reviewed, plus many on the Northern Peninsula and on the entire state of Michigan. Much of the material for 3 this report was obtained from local and state conservation files, history and library references, census figures, economic development data sheets, Michigan statistical abstracts, publications of previous surveys on certain resources, and from local observations, study and interviews. Lgcation of Marquette County Marquette County is located in the north-central part of the Northern Peninsula of Michigan between 46 and 47 degrees north latitude and between 87 and 88 degrees west longitude. The northern border of the county is made up of sixty-eight miles of shoreline on Lake Superior. It is bounded on the east by Delta and Alger counties, on the west by Baraga and Iron counties, and on the south by Dickinson, Menominee and Delta counties (see Figure 1). Size of County Marquette is Michigan's largest county containing 1,841 square miles. It is larger in land area than the state of Rhode Island (1,058 sq. mi.), and is about equal in size to the state of Delaware (1,978 sq. mi.). It extends from north to south for a total distance of approximately sixty-four miles, and it is forty-eight miles in width from east to west. Within its borders are a total of 1,178,240 acres of landlresources, plus an additional 23,680 acres of water resources. Ninety-two per cent of its lands are in forest areas. -._‘_ 11240-16th Census of the United States. Land area GXcludes water bodies in excess of forty acres. MICHIGAN . Scale of Miles r—r—-o—-o—+—c l0 0 IO 20 30 4O ‘ mm» L A K E S U P E R t O R mm» C A N A D A I W. q ALGEII u cmmm 0" SCHOOLCRAFI \ ‘ I DICKINSM MACK NAC ./ \- Dem ‘ 0. s I - l ' . B ' " D 0 'B I O .0 L A K E ° .. - .s’ ‘ CHEBOYGAN ’0‘" I. s /' ’ msouusu H U R 0 N I . -‘ ./ Q nomuomch /° 0 015500 AlPENA / LEELANAU r;— l GRAND KALXASKA cuwroao OSCODA ALCONA . 3mm TRAVERSE I __—__.—‘____._4 ___..———4 /' wmoao mssAuxec aoscomuow oosmw IOSCO L A K E I mm: 3 MASON um: oscsou cm: 5lewa I HURON M ———f—‘ l C HI 6 A N #1 “Y I, «scam 15mm MIDLAND ' wewmoo I wscou . mm»: . momma ' omno: “Gm" 2 \. mu GENESEE mm \ 0mm IONIA cumou smwassse SAINT Cl“ I “com ' autumn I' meow um mow mom» uvmosxow m: mm mumoo CALHOUN JACKSON “WWW wmaz CANADA IEIIIEN as; sr. mm mucn mason! mum: some: L A K E “_ML_u ERIE INDIANA : OHIO ‘«‘\g4 I Location of Marquette County. Topography The general elevation of the eastern part of Marquette County ranges from 602 to 1,150 feet above sea level. This area is underlain by sandstone and limestone. Most of the western part of the county, for the most part composed of igneous and metamorphosed pre-Cambrian rocks, is situated on elevations ranging from 1,300 to 1,700 feet above sea level. The elevations vary, however, from sandy benches rising only a few feet above Lake Superior to the Huron Mountains which attain a height ranging from 1,800 and 2,000 feet above sea level.1 The Huron Mountains form the second highest land area in Michigan and are only exceeded by the Porcupine Mountains of Ontonagon County. The entire area was covered during the Pleistocene Age by ice sheets which left a heterogeneous mantle of rocky drift of various thicknesses and composition. The area is essential- ly a part of a deeply dissected highland plateau featured by rock knobs, deep valleys filled with glacial debris, high sandy hills, sand plains, and plains representing old glacial lake levels, all of which are featured by swamps and lakes. Marquette County contains 835 inland lakes and about 1,906 Miles of streams, which in both cases, is more than any of the other counties in the state of Michigan. sums A common conception concerning Marquette County, as well 1Frank Leverett, Surfa e Geolo of Michi an (Pub. 25; Lansing: Michigan Geologica Survey, 193 , Po . 6 as of the entire Northern Peninsula, is that of a we 5'1 cte, heavily forested area, with an extremely cold, rugged climate. One of the efforts of economic and industrial development programs is to dispel this conception. Economists claim that stories on weather endeavor to protray the unusual. Consequent- ly the occurrence of an occasional low winter temperature or a heavy snowfall is read and interpreted with considerable mis- understanding. Even under these unusual conditions, trans- portation, industrial, business and social activities continue normally. According to a recent survey1 , a 12-inch snowfall or a 20-below temperature in the lowahumidity Northern Peninsula causes much less inconvenience than two or three inches of snow or a damp 20 above in many Metropolitan areas farther south. For comparative purposes, the following tabulation of long time Weather Bureau data provides average July and January temperatures for several industrial cities: TABLE 1. COMPARATIVE TEMPERATURES OF SOME CITIES July p e;~age January Average Qifil T9"Pefa4h22 ZEEESZELEZE Iarquette, Michigan 65.3 17.4 Detroit, Michigan 3.1 25.5 Flint, Michigan 71.9 22.9 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 70.1 20.5 Minneapolis, Minnesota 73.2 13.1 Chicago, Illinois 75.5 25.3 h 1A Survey Report by the National Society of Industrial Realtors, Industrial Location.Advanta es of Michi an' sUpper Egalgggla, February, 1955. p. 4- 7 According to the published records of the United States Weather Bureau station located at Marquette, the average annual temperature, as based on the period 1921-1950, was 42.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Based on the 40 years prior to 1957, at Marquette, the average July temperature was 65.3 degrees, and the average January temperature was 17.4 degrees. The extremes in temp- erature during the period 1921-1950 in Marquette include the record high of 108 degrees, and the record low of 27 degrees below zero. The temperatures recorded at Marquette might appear extreme, but they are not as extreme as those in other states of similar latitude, because Lake Superior moderates the extremes of heat and cold. In summer, the air passing over the lake is cooled before reaching the shores. In winter, although ice forms along the shores, Lake Superior remains above the freezing point even in the coldest weather. The typical cold wave moving down from the northwest crosses Superior's com- paratively warm water and is much milder when it hits the south shore. The temperature of the Arctic air mass is often raised twenty degrees by the lake, so the area south of the lake doesn't get the low temperatures to be found to the east and west. As with temperature, the amount of precipitation and snowfall varies greatly within short distances, especially in the hilly areas, throughout the 1,841 square miles of Marquette County. At Marquette, the average annual precipitation, based on 8 the period 1921-195o, was 31.2s inches. February is normally the driest month, and July the wettest. The maximum monthly rainfall for the past 20 years was 10.2 inches and occurred in July, l9fi9. The minimum monthly rainfall for the same period was 0.21 inches and occurred in October, 1956. Lake Superior is considered the Midwest's greatest snow- maker. As the dry, cold Arctic air mass is warmed by the lake, its capacity for holding water vapor is increased and it picks up a considerable quantity in its passage over the lake. As it reaches land, the air in the lowest level is warmer than the earth's surface and it cools the moisture that has been picked up in crossing the lake, forming snowflakes that blanket the south shore. Snowfall averages more than 100 inches along Lake Superior each winter. In the southern Upper Peninsula counties, it is less than 50 inches. (The greatest snowfall in the Upper Peninsula is along Lake Superior on the Keweenaw Peninsula. An average of 184 inches has fallen at the airport near Calumet.) At Marquette, the snowfall for the past 40 years prior to 1957, averaged 113.3 inches. Since 1904, the annual snowfall at Marquette has ranged from 53.4 inches in the winter of 1940~4l, to 188.0 inches in the winter of 1949-50. The snowfall for the past three winters at Marquette was as follows: l95o-57 - 108.7 inches; 1957-58 - 121.6 inches; and 1958-59 - 104.0 inches. Population of Iarquette County The pOpulation of Marquette County, according to the U.S. Census of 1950, was 47,654. This was an increase of 1.1 per cent 1. The Huron Mountains of Marquette County. 2. Winter at Northern Michigan College. lO 4 from the 19L0 census fi;ures. It was estimated that on (I January 1, 1953, there was a population of 50,500 in the county.1 With a land area of 1,8dl square miles, this would be a pop- ulation density of 25.9 persons per square mile in 1950. Stated in another way, there are 24.2 acres of land per person in Marquette County. Marquette is the largest city in the county as well as the county seat. It had a population of 17,202 in 1950. In 1958, an estimate of the population of the county was 18,400. Ishpeming is the next largest city with a population in 1950 of 8,962. Negaunee had a population of 6,472 in 1950. Marquette, Ishpeming and Negaunee are the only cities of the county. The populations of the various communities of the county are included with the population of the political townships. These statistics are given in Table 2, page 2;, 1John P. Henderson (ed), Michigan Statistical Abstract (2nd. ed., M.s.u. 1958), p.6. Based on a Survey of Buying POWer, Sales Management. May 10, 1958- II. THE HISTORY OF MARQUETTE COUNTY Pre-historic Metal Workers The history of Marquette County begins with the earliest inhabitants of this region who were perhaps the pro-historic Mound Builders--a civilization antedating the Indians. These pre-historic miners worked the copper lodes in Michigan, by shallow excavations, and made arrow heads and other artifacts of the native copper. These copper implements were dropped here and there on Presque Isle and elsewhere within Marquette County. These ancient peoples are supposed to have come from Mexico and to have been driven southward, or perhaps extermin- ated, by the Indians who may have come from Asia across Bering Strait. These earliest inhabitants disappeared about ten thousand years ago.1 Indians of Marquette County At the time the white men arrived the native Indians of Marquette County were the Chippewa, also known as the Ojibway. The Ojibway Indians were a branch of the powerful Algonquin tribe of the New York and the St. Lawrence River regions. The Ojibways were then slowly driving the Dakotah (Sioux) Indians westward, for the Sioux Indians once roamed from Minnesota as far east as Lake Michigan. The Chippewa (Ojibway) tribe was __ 1Lake Superior Iron Ore Association, Lake Spperior Iron 932g (Cleveland: Hanna Building, 1938), p.1fii ll closely related to the Cttawa and Fotawatomi tribes. Perhaps in early times they had been a ringl: tribe. Recornizinr this relationship, they called thensel”es the "Three Fires", and the Chippewa were known as the "Elder Brothers".l These three tribes, with the Miami and the Menominee tribes, which were among the six prin ipal tribes found in K: hiran, belonged to O the Algonquian language group. The Algonquian group usually lived in Wigwams, low dome-shaped huts made of saplings bent over and covered with bark or wit mats woven from reeds. The Wyandots, the only principal Indian tribe of Michigan that did not belong to the Algonquian language group, had been driven out of the Northern Peninsula of W chigan at an earlier time. (The Wyandots, belonging to the Iroquoian language group, and like the Iroquois to whom they were relat ed, built long houses, sometimes more than one hundred feet in lenc ch.)2 In Marquette County, mostly within the limits of what is now the city of Marquette, there were six Indian villages and two burying groun s.3 Another Indian village was located in what is now Powell Township, at the mouth of the Pine River (near the present location of the Huron Mountain lodge). This village was nearly forty miles by Indian trail from the village at the mouth of the Chocolay River. Four main trails branched from the Indian villages 1F. C. Bald Michigan in Four Centuries (New York Harper and Brother, 1950? PP “'8 17 . 2Ibid. '1, -. “W. B. Hinodal;, Archaeolo bical Atla" of ichiran i s e s (Ann Arbor: Un v. of Kich.Fress,19317: ,.; 13 located at the present city of Karquette. One went northwest through the Huron Mountains; another we t to the head of TD Keweenaw Bay; the third southwest to the Escanaba River; and the fourth went southeast to Grand Island. The western trail divided near Negaunee into two parallel spurs and united again at the northern end of Lake Michigamme, where a canoe trail swung downriver to the Menominee River.1 Although there were several Indian villages, there were not many Indians within the present limits of Marquette County. In fact, there were not many found along the entire south shore of Lake Superior. It is probable that there was no concentrated tribal settlement of the Upper Peninsula. In 1798, the Canadian furtrader and surveyor, David Thompson, who passed this way, estimated that there were not more than 150 Indian families in the whole region south of the lake. The scarcity of villages and Indians was believed due mainly to the lack f available food. The deer appear to have migrated southward where browsing conditions were more favor- able. Beaver seem to have been relatively abundant. Fish were abundant and were caught in the summer as well as throurh the ice in the winter. This might explain the presence of the Indian settlement at the mouth of the Carp River in Marquette County where agricultural operations were also carried on. The principal Indian crop was corn. In 1845, the first United States surveyors found the Indians growing potatoes near Ives lake (TSIN, R28W) in Marquette County. A‘ —— i lHinsdale, op.cit., p.28. 1h FarlygExplcrstions Like many other sections of North America, this region owes its earliest explorations to the world-wide demand for furs and to the search for a shorter route to the Orient. Before any white men had penetrated as far as the Great Lakes, Indians were making the long, difficult canoe passage from Northern Michigan all the way to Nontreal. Here French traders provided a ready market for their furs. It was inevitable that some of the Frenchmen should attempt to reach the country from which Indians came with rich furs. So, the early history of this region begins wit; the travels of French fur traders, adventurers, and missionaries of the Christian faith. It is difficult to say who was the first white man that visited Marquette County. Many of the early explorers, mission- aries and fur traders probably spent at least one night's stop-over within the bounds of harquette County as they skirted the southern shores of Lake Superior. A day's canoe journey is limited to about 50 miles (16 leagues). As Marquette County has 68 miles of shore-line on Lake Superior, it would have necessitated their debarking on the shores of this county, even if they were not grounded by the severe weather conditions occasionally found on Lake Superior. It is believed that two Frenchmen, Etienne Brule and a companion named Grenoble, were the first Europeans to visit Michigan. From 1610 to 1618.1 Brule, a member of Champlain's __ —— 1C. W. Butterfield, History of Brule's Discoveries and MK loggtions, 1610-1626, p.20, cited by MTchigan Historical Records Survey Project, Marquette County, No.52, 9-7. 15 expedition, spent eight years livin; among the Indian tribes of Northern Michigan, learning their languages and customs, visiting their copper mines along the shores of Lake Superior, and exploring four of the five Great Lakes.1 The next visitors to Michigan were two Jesuit missionaries, Father Isaac Joques and Charles Raymbault, who went to the eastern part of Lake Superior in 1641. As early as 1654, Medard Chouart, who assumed the title Sieur des Groseilliers, was on Lake Superior and returned with 1,656 canoes loaded with valuable furs. In 1659, he, with his brother-in-law, Pierre Esprit Radisson, went again to the Lake Superior region. Returning in 1660, they described the majestic splendor of the Pictured Rocks (Alter County) and other sites. The wild beauty of the Lake Superior scenery so impressed them that some of the places mentioned are easily identified.2 The Jesuit missionary, Father Rene Menard, reached the head of Keweenaw Bay late in the autumn of 1660, no doubt stop- ping enroute in Marquette County. Also in 1660, the Franciscan Father, Louis Hennepin, took the St. Louis River-Sandy Lake- Mille Lacs route from the western end of Lake Superior southerly.5 Father Claude Allouez, in 1665, went to the western end of Lake Superior and was active in establishing missions along the south shore of Lake Superior. During 1668, the Jesuit Father Jacques Marquette, after —— 1 Bald, op.cit., p.23. Claims Brule reached the Northern Inninsula of Michigan in 1622. 21bid. p.26, '2 JLake Superior Iron Ore Association, Op.cit., P.14. l6 ‘. y -\l ‘r 1' '~ . ' , a ,p a ‘ _.n N 7n , "1, ‘1 V, when the COlh.j 61:1 nity 3i Rarqueste were naled, successziily - ‘ .- ‘y i ‘ 3’ " . v‘ 1‘: A " 1. ‘ establisned a permaneni Lission at Sault Ste. aarie, at the eastern extremity of the Northern Peninsula of Michigan. TEis mission served as a stopping place and in this way substantially aided those making subsequent voyages br appreciably shorteninf the tremendous distances involved. (This was nearly 40 rear A ,. (0 before outposts in Lower Michiran were established. Detroit was founded by Cadillac, who went from the settlement of St. Ignace in 1701.) During 1669, Father Marquette skirted the southern O shores of Lake Superior to LaPointe du Esprit in Wise nsin, where he re-established the mission begun there in 1665 by Father Allouez. As previously stated, a canoe journey was limited to a maximum of 50 miles per day, and so it is believed that Father marquette, enroute to his new mission, must have stopped to preach to the Indians of the villages of Marquette County. The Discovery of Iron Ore - ‘ For nearly two hundred years, the explorations were almost Wholly by Frenchmen, this region being part of New France. In 1763, Louis XV ceded the part east of the Mississippi River to George III of England, who, twenty years later, lost it to the Colonies at the close of the Revolutionary War. It was nearly 150 years after the beginning of the French eXplorations in this region before any mention was made of seeing iron ore. The first note of its occurrence in the Lake sMperior region was at Gunflint Lake (partly in Minnesota and turtly in Ontario) in 1780. No attention was paid to it as the French had come to this r gion to conquer, to preach, and to (I) obtain furs. The Indians were the original proprietors of these lands and from them, by a series of treaties, the United States secured the area which includes the present Marquette County. The land in Marquette County east of the Chocolay River had been ceded in 1836, and the remainder of Marquette County was included in the treaty made with the Indians at LaPointe, Wis- consin, in 1842. Settlement could not legally or safely be made here until these cessions took place. Lewis Cass, territorial governor of Michigan, sent eXped- itions accompanied by geologists to study the south shore of Lake Superior. To him credit is due for much of the early detailed explorations of the shores of Lake Superior. Before 182 , navigators had observed conspicuous rock masses along the shores of Lake Superior. In 1821, Henry R. Schoolcraft, who was commissioned by the government to conduct explorations, made camp in Marquette Bay and noted the occurrence of granite there. Dr. Douglas Houghton, who, in 1838, was to become the first State Geologist, was with Schoolcraft at Marquette Bay. In 1841, Houghton made some observations in the vicinity of Marquette and found hematite, but he did not think it valuable because it was disseminated in schists.1 This was the first reference to iron-bearing minerals in this county. It was also the first in the Lake Superior region since the French mentioned seeing iron ore at Gunflint in 1780. -# 1Lake Superior Iron Ore Association, op.cit., p.16. u‘ ‘o m (-1- Also, before settlem (D could take place, the re '"I t o £2. to be surveyed and subdivi-ed into townships and sections. W. A. Burt and his surveyors began subdividing land in Marquette County in August, 1844. They proceeded first to establish the township lines, and it was while establishing the east-west line between Township 47 North and Township 48 North in September, 1844, that they located iron ore near Teal Lake. The presence of iron was indicated prior to its discovery by the gyrations of 'v the magnetic compass, but a. A. Burt had invented a solar compass, which used the sun and not terrestrial magnetism to determine directions. With this solar compass the surveyors had continued their work. Mining and Early Developments It was in 1845, the year following the surveyor's dis- covery, that the search for iron began in earnest. P. N. Everett was conducted to the site of the discovery by Indian Marge Gesik. Everett organized a company, known as the Jackson Company, and acquired one square mile adjacent to the present city of Negaunee. Mining started at the Jackson Eine in 1846. This was the first mining in Marquette County, as well as the first in the Lake Emperior area. It was not far from this Jackson Mine--near the Carp River within the present limits of Negaunee--that the first seuflement was made in Marquette County (1846). Because of the poor transportation facilities, it was very difficult to ship the bulky ore. Men first attempted to make iron at the location of the mine rather than to ship the ore out Of'the area. In 1847, the first metallic iron in the Lake 19 Superior district was made in a forge on the Carp River in the vicinity of Negaunee. It was the forerunner of about 16 small forges or blast furnaces which later appeared in the district. These early operations used charcoal for fuel and tremendous quantities of hardwood were consumed in runninr the furnaces. Many of the early smelting operations failed during the first few years. Ultimately, they all failed. The first settlement on the site of the present city of Marquette was made in 1849 to set up a forge for processing ore from the Jackson Mining Company. In 1849, the Cleveland Mine near Ishpeming was developed by the Marquette Iron Company, and up to 1854, hauled ore by wagon to Marquette for use in the forges operating there. With the development of mining, the importance of the city of Marquette's location on Marquette Pay became signifi‘ant. As a protected inlet from eleven to twenty feet deep and a mile and 1 a half long, the bay was unique in requiring no dredging. In 1853, the Cleveland Iron Mining Company built a loading dock at Marquette, and in September of that year, shipped 152 tons of ore to Sharon, Pennsylvania. For a number of years, efforts had been made to build a canal around the St. Mary's Rapids between Lake Superior and lake Huron. The first iron ore shipped out of the Lake Superior region was from the Marquette Range and required a portage around the rapids. Congress authorized the building of the k lMichigan Historical Records Survey, Inventor1_of the Cmnn; Archives of Michiran (No.52-Marquette County; Detroit: v". f“ (I K} 500 Locks that same year and were started the next year (1333). The Locks were completed in 1853, providing the transportation link between Lake Superior and Lakes Huron and Michigan. The first railroad in the county, also the first in the Northern Peninsula of Iichigan, was the Iron Mountain Railroad from Marquette to Negaunee and Ishpsming, completed in 185 . This railroad was extended to L'Anse in 1872; to the Copper Country in 1883; to Chicago, via the North-Western Line in 1872; and to the Straits and Detroit in 1831. Before the occurrence of the Panic of 1873, iron mines and mining companies in Marquette County had appeared also at Clarksburg, Champion, Kichigamme, and Republic. In 187;, there were 23 iron mines in the county and five million tons of iron ore had already been shipped. Minerals other than iron ore received early attention. The boom in the Copper Country in the 1840's led to the organ- ization of copper mining companies along the Dead River in Marquette County. The minerals silver and lead were sought on Presque Isle (lSAB), north of the city of Marquette, where the old shafts may still be seen. There was a gold excitement in the late 1880's,and.the Ropes Gold Mine near Ishpeming, between 1883 and 1897, produced some $650,000 worth of gold bulli n.1 The Michigan Gold Mine nearby produced a smaller quantity. 3&u1ding stone of the brown and raindrop sandstone was quarried near Marquette from the 1870's and shipped to distant outsiie points. The old Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York was reported M .— .¥ ‘ 1Alfred C. Lane, Sixth Annua1_Report_gf the State Geologist (Lansing: Mich. Geol. Survey Div., 19057; 9-157. h) F". to have used it. Verde Antique marble close to the Ishpeming gold deposits, along with talc, have received sporadic attention. The county was originally covered with a dense forest, including pines, hardwoods, and swamp conifers. The removal of the pine forest started about 1870. The demand for charcoal to be used in the manufacture of i5 iron led to the utilization of large quantities of hardwood during the early period of settlement, but the exploitation of the hardwood forests for the production of lumber did not begin until about 1900. From the outset, Lake Superior fish were in demand and eventually were shipped outside the county on a commercial basis. With the decline of the fur trade about lBAO, the American Fur Company turned their attention from furs to fishing, and packed and shipped out large quantities of Lake Superior Whitefish. In the early years there was very little agriculture in the county. However, many part-time farmers were located near the mining communities. Since the comin of the settlements, the people of the ,3 area were promoting the tourist industry. The Lake Superi_r Journal in 1857 speaks of the county as a mecca for tourists with imtel accommodations at Marquette for 200. Mrs. Abraham Lincoln is said to have spent a summer in Marquette followinf her husband’s assassination. Although native Americans made up most of the original settlers, the Cornish were soon to arrive. Later the Finnish and fhmdish peoples, the Germans, French, and other immigrants sought a.living within the county and have had a very important part in developing its resources. III. THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATIOH OF FARQUETTE COUNTY The entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan was divided into six counties under an act of the Legislature passed March 9, 1843. Marquette was one of the six designated at this time. The first political unit to be orfanized within the county of Marquette was Marquette Township, established in 1850. The organization of the county was completed in 1851 and included a part of what is now Dickinson County. The present boundaries were established in 1891 (see Figure 2). As the population at the three principal centers grew, l-gi n (W lr“ \l {arquette in i village gover ments were established--at 59, Negaunee in 1865, and Ishpeming in 1871. City governments were soon organized--Marquette in 1371, and at Hegaunee and at Ishpeming in 1873. The County of Marquette is now divided into 19 political townships and three cities. The names and respective popula- tion U] c townships and cities are shown in Table 2, A of the r.) page 24 .1 County government is a composite of related yet partly distinct authorities. Each township has one member on the county board of supervisors, and each supervisor is the 3888880? or the township. Marquette County has 44 supervisors. Nineteen —___ 1 it pp.l7-29 Michigan Historical Records Survey, op.c" . . Comtains historical sketch of each township in narquette County. 22 POLITICAL TUBE-“SHIPS POWELL MARQUETTE COUNTY M ICI-IIGA N o m 5 § HAMPION z m 4 a. ‘9 :1: ET: (n 2 ... 2 fl (—1 J :5 CHOCOLAY O 2 1 +- E LY I SANDS -J 0 3‘ WEST an -I o S 2 8 TILDEN E BRANCH o I 2 m :3 q a: I x F O R S Y T H m TURIN Figure 2 L1 1 The 19 political townships ‘ 6‘ of Marquette County. W E LLS €42? 23 are from the townships, and 25 ar has ten, and Kegaunee each city. e from the cities. Ishpeming has five-~one from each of the wards in Marquette has ten supervisors--one from each precinct. TABLE 2 POPULATION OF TOWNSHIPS AND CITIES IN MARQUETTE COUNTY Tgwnship Population by Years and City 1890 1910 1930 1950 Champion ----- ----- 2,622 1,069 634 539 Chocolay ------- --- 1,235 852 636 1,109 Ely --------------- 694 922 407 678 Ewing ------------- --- --- 249 238 Forsyth ----------- 270 2,402 2,307 1,730 Humboldt ----- ..... 608 604 558 435 Ishpeming City ---- 11,197 12,448 9.238 9.935 Ishpeming --------- 904 58 19O§4 1’42? Marquette City ---- 9,023 11,503 14.709 17.3%, Marquette --------- 26' 155 1§3 1,??? Michigamme -------- 1,435 846 y 401 493 Negaunee City ----- 6,078 8,460 0,552 6,300 Negaunee -- -------- 33, 157 277 841 Powell ............ --- 736 1,020 612 Republic ---- ------ 2,594 2,420 1,422 1,492 Richmond ---- ------ 1,132 911 1,162 1.137 Sands ............. --- 159 1:6 10 Skandia ----------- --- 546 707 633 Tilden ----- ....... 908 1,150 898 907 Turin ----- ........ 100 202 461 217 138118 -------- nn---- --" 306 638 4?]- West Branch ------- -—- 304 287 :6 Tgtal County ...... 39,521 46,739 44.076 47.284 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, as quoted in M3§3Uette Planning Board, Marquette, Michigan City Plan, 1951, p. 9 Marquette is the county seat and the largest city in the county, It is located on Lake Superior about 411 miles from La1181113, and 451 miles from Detroit. It is located about half- Way between the east and west extremes of the Upper Peninsula. Marquette is about 166 miles from Sault Ste. Marie, and 151 miles from Ironwood. IV. GROWTH AND EC N MIC DEVELOPMEXT OF MARQUETTE COUfiTY Develo ments to i;pr=;e_Transportvtion and Shipping The Harbor.--Marquette has a good harbor. The United States government was called upon to improve the port of Marquette to facilitate shipping by build n5 breakwaters. This :as first authorized by Congress in 1868 and completed for 2,000 feet in 1375. Also to facilitate navigation on Lake Superior, the first United States lighthouse in the county was completed in 185 . The Life-saving Station, n w the Coast Guard was a. located here in 1831. The U.S. Weather Bureau was estaol ‘ ‘ne H r n: in Marquette in 1371. The present harbor contains two large O: ore docks from which the major part of the iron ore mine in the Marquette Range is shipped to the lower Lake ports. Railroads.--The county is well supplied with railroad 0) facilities, as five railroad companies pa s through portions of the county. The main line of the "Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Railroad Company” connecting St. Ignace and Duluth traverses the entire width of the county. "The Lake Superior and Ishpemin; Railroad" carries the iron ore from the mines in and near Ishpeming and Negaunee to the loading docks at Mar- quette. Branches of this railroad extending from Marquette to Eng Bay and to Munising serve as local outlets for forest products. Megaunee is the northern terminus of the "Chicago 26 3. 4. 27 The ore dock in south Marquette harbor. The ore dock in north Marquette LI’;‘. to the ore docks at Escanaba, the delivery of forest products from the many local landings comprises a greater part of the business. Champion and Republic are located on the "Chicago, thwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railway" which extends from Chicago to Houghton, Hancock and Calumet in the Copper Country. "The Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad" provides transporta- tion facilities for the forest products of the Watson, Arnold, and Northland communities. Roads and Highway§.--The settled sections of the county are supplied with improved gravel and hard-surface roads. United States Highway Al, a highway extending from Florida, through Chicago to the Copper Country, traverses the central part of the county passing through Marquette, Ishpeming, and ibgaunee. State Highways M-28, M-BS, M—gh, and M-QS also serve the county. The Upper Peninsula map (Figure 3) locates these State and Federal highways in Marquette County. In addition to the Federal and State highway system, the county has constructed hard-surface and gravel roads. The roads of the county are given snowplow service during the winter months. Airports.--There are three airports in the county: the FL I. Sawyer Air Base, the Marquette County Airport, and the Ishpeming-Dexter Airport. 29 figure 3 ~ State Kin-n 4 I1 a”. ' In. uette Count .4”; r p, // / , ® I! .11.. ,. . .3 :1! o i!!! i y A AA ,xQ V s . Aw y m p e u a o x a :L a . . ... C195. 5!... ,t t y W ,N/la/Ti u. ti ‘ f a .5 . 4,. EC! ‘5‘! 7 m. D . 4.1 i: 5.6 , . t n 30 The Marquette Coun y Airport is located between Negaunee and Marquette. During the year 1933, North Central Airlines completed 4,087 flight operations (landings or takeoffsi. Last year (1933) was the first full calendar year that the county airport handled all civilian flight operations for the county. The biggest factor in Marquette County’s anticipated growth will be the activation and Operation of the Sawyer Air Force Base. It is expected to increase the county's population Enrabout 10,000 by 1961. The K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, located 20 miles s uth of Marquette and seven miles north of Gwinn, in Marquette County, contains 4,400 acres. It is located on flat sand plains in Sands Township and has a 12,300 foot runway. The Air Force Base has been under construction for four years. It became an Air Force Base officially only recently after it had been the site of K. I. Sawyer Airport, a Narquette County facility. The county received approximately half a million dollars to build a modern airport near Negaunee when it turned the Sawyer site over to the government. Between 2,000 and 3,000 persons have been employed on construction projects at the base during the last two years; about 60% have been drawn from the local labor supply. The base was activated on April 8, 1936. Three squadrons 0f planes will be stationed at Sawyer. Included will be a fighter group, a squadron of heavy Jet bombers, and a squadron cfl‘jet tankers. The fighter group will begin operations at the base during the latter part of this year (1959). es U) Under cons true ion or already completed are 575 Ewe fbr married military personnel, and the c n:; ruction of an additional 260 units has been approved. Four barracks, each accommodating 200 men already have been completed; four more of the same size and an 1,900- an dining hall are now under construction. About 400 vehicles will be stored at the base's motor pool; more snow-ploWing units than the liarquette County Road Commission uses will be available for clearing runw ays and streets. Completed or still under construction are such buildings as a church, library, theater, clubs, gymnasium, 50-bed hospital, stores, hangars, nose docks for planes, and warehouses. The center of the operation is a top secret building, 150 by 270 feet, three stories high, with walls six feet thick and without windows, which has been completed. This buildin: houses the semi-automatic ground.environment (SAGE) unit. SAGE is an electronic system for almost instantaneously correlating and transmitting data from air detection centers to air defense centers. “h 3 IBM (International Business Machines) bnit is the fourteenth such system placed into Operation and over 30 are planned for the nation. With its intricate computer equipment, the SAGE building will cost 60 million dollars. Six hundred persons, including 120 civilians-~most1y International Business Machines engineers--will be on duty there. Educational needs associated with the growing base have resulted in construction of a lB-classroom elementary school 32 5. The SAGE Building at K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base. 6. State House of Correction and Branch Prison. 77‘: at Gwinn. Another school, also to be erected with governnent funds, will go up nearer the base soon. "The military-civilian payrolls will, of course, provide an important economic prop for the county and Peninsula. K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base will become the largest "in ”tr in the immediate area, larger even than the iron mining industry."1 State Institutions at Marquette Two state institutions were established at Marquette: the State House of Correction and Branch Prison in 19 86 and imrthern Michigan College, as it is now called, in 1899. State House_pf Correction and_ Branih Pri so .--By authority of a joint meeting of the State boards in 1897. the Marquette penitentiary was made the State's Incorrigible Prison. In J anuary, 1959, the innate population of this State Prison reached an all-time high when l,h50 prisoners were listed, including 1,170 in the prison proper, and 280 in the four corrections-conservation camps in the Upper Peninsula. In 1959, the prison employed 250 people Northern Michigan Colleg§.--Originally established in 1399 as a teacher education institution, Northern has become a.multi-purpose college granting degrees in Liberal Arts, EMsiness Administration, Medical Technology and Social Service while continuing to enrich its teacher education program. The _ Y l"what Does Sawyer AFB Mean to Marquette County and the Lola's," The Mining Journal, May 29, 1959. .2 V /, t-c college offers pre-professional study in Conservation, Forestry, Agriculture, Engineering, Kedicine, Law, Architecture, Dentistry and Nursing. The college now has a 157-acre campus containing 22 buildings. Construction of a new student union building and another dormitory for women was started in the summer of 1959. This was one college of 125 colleges throughout the country where summer science institutes were held in 1958 and 1959. The federal government in 1950 set up the National Science Found- ation to increase the reservoir of scientifically trained persons in the nation. One of the ways the Foundation assists in training is through these summer institutes. Enrollment at Northern Michigan College, which increased nearly 30% in the fall of 1958, reached the record figure of 1,743. in enrollment of 2,??? by 1960 and 3,000 by 1975 is anticipated. nd bxj ederwl Azenci - (0 m Headquarters for State _fi_ Because of the central location of Marquette County, the state has placed at Marquette, branch services of various state agencies, such as the State Department of Agriculture, the FMEional Headquarters of the Michigan Department of Conservation, and the Upper Peninsula headquarters of the Extension Services of Michigan State University. Other state and federal offices located here are: Soil Cbnservation Service, Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest &nwice, Internal Revenue, State Tax Division, Michigan Employ- Kent Security Commission, Social Security. National Guard, iLP. State Police Headquarters, Office of Vocational Rehab- ilitation, U.P. Child Guidance Center, Michigan Children‘s Aid Society, Bureau of Probation, County Red Cross, Boy Scouts, Catholic Social Services, Blue Cross, and White Cross. Many of these are the only ones in their respective fields in the Upper Peninsula. Marquette County has one of the three tuberculosis sanatoria in the Upper Peninsula. It is the Morgan Heights Sanatorium between Kegaunee and_Marquette. In January, 1959, of the 97 beds in the Sanatorium, 70 were occupied with tuber- culosis patients. Bay Cliff Health Camp Near Big Bay in Marquette County, is located the Bay Cliff Health Camp. t is unique in that it is a summer camp fpr under-privileged and handicapped children of all faiths from the 15 counties of the Upper Peninsula. It is supported tw'public-spirited citizens and civic organizations. It is a completely non-profit institution that exists exclusively for the health, happiness and welfare of physically handicapped children. Six-week sessions have been held annually for 25 years (1959 was the 26th) at the Bay Cliff Health Camp, with an average of 160 children enjoying this program each year. Bay (Hiff accepts children with virtually any physical handicap. Of the 174 that attended camp in 1959, 54 were orthopedic cases,‘75 suffered speech defects, 33 had hearing disabilities, amil2 were cardiacs and regular campers. One of the campers ’V 7‘ b A‘ r“ v _/ was a deaf and blind child. To serve them was a staff of o5 :34 (I) tmrsons, including two speech therapists, one teacher of t deaf and hard-of—hearing, one remedial instruction teacher, two registered occupational therapists, one occupational therapy student and one registered physical therapist. Many of the staff members were college students. Bay Cliff has affiliation vuth Northern Michigan College and Wayne State University. Under this arrangement students are able to receive college credit while serving at the camp. At Bay Cliff a program fitted to the special needs of the individual camper is conducted for children who otherwise would never know the joy of attending a suwmer camp. A great deal of the credit for this wonderful opportunity for handicapped children goes to Miss Elba Morris, R.N. Number Employed in Major Industry Groups Mining.--The number of employees in major industry groups by Mishigan Counties in 19501 shows that of the 15,808 employed in Marquette County, 3,408 were employed in mining. This was the major industry in Marquette County in 1950, employing more peOple than any other industry in the county. This is not surprising, as Karquette County leads all counties of Michigan in mineral production, with a total value of $49,250,069.2 Iron ore held top position in value of all k 1John P. Henderson, Michigan Statistical Abstract (2nd. Em,; East Lansing: Michigan State University, 19535, pp.64-65. 2Harry 0. espensen, and Emery T. Carlson, Michigan Miner- a1 Industries 1956 (Lansing: Geological Survey Division, Department of Conservation, 1958). p.50. ‘ 37 minerals produced in Kichigan in 1956. Iron production in ifichigan is principally from four counties--Dickinson, Iron, Gogebic, and Marquette, with Marquette rankiig first-~produc- i g about 455 of the total. The eleven underground and six open pit mines in the Karquette Range shipped 5,689,015 long tons of iron ore in 1956-.1 Iron from the Karquette Range has been a very important mineral in the industrial development of the county, state, and nation. According to Robert J. Furlong, Executive Secretary, Michigan Tourist Council: "There are those who vdll argue that the (iron) industry had its birthplace in Minnesota, but they forget that the last spike that joined '\ the east and west was driven into a Union Pacific railroad \ tie in 1869. The Minnesota iron ranges were not discovered until 188A."2 Other Industries.—-The number of employees in Narquette County in major industry groupings for 1950 is given in the '2 table on the following page.“ lIbid., p.10. 2 Robert J, Furlong, Marquette County (Lansing: Fichigan Tburist Council, No date, 3 pp. Mimeographe ). Do?- 3Henderson, Michigan Statistical Abstract, op.cit., pp.64-55, q-v‘ ‘1 4 ball ’ THCOIED IN KAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS TgfigUETTE COUNTY-al,53 Mining --------‘~-- ------------ - ------------------ ----- 3,H?9 Manufacturing ------------ - ------------ -- ----- -----¢--- 2,811 Trade, Wholesale and Retail ----------- - ------ ------~-- 2,71h Utilities, Transportation, Communication, and other -—- 1,650 Other Services, Medical and Health, Educational, etc. - l,A72 EMsiness and Personal Service ---------------- - -------- 1,375 Public Administration ---- ------- - ----------------- ---- 876 Construction ----- ----- --- ----------------------------- 710 Agriculture --- -------- - ------------- ----- ----------- -- "56 Industry not reported -------- ---------- --------------- 179 Forestry and Fishing, -«..-.-----------—----------------- 118 Total ............ ..- .......... ------------------ firsts Industries involving forests have continu d in the county since the early settlers arrived. Today, the forests are twing cut for pulpwood, railroad ties, poles, mining timber, and fence posts. However, as noted in Table 3, the number employed directly as foresters or lumbermen is small in the county. However, with manufacturing, trade, construction, and other areas of employment, the forest industry still plays a very important role. Regarding the type of employees found in Marquette County and in the Upper Peninsula, the Ebasco report on Michigan's Upper Peninsula claims: "The people themselves and their way 0f life constitute one of the most valuable of the Upper Peninsula resources. Here is a labor force composed of workers who believe in giving a full day's work for their day's pay. They are held in high regard for the quality and quantity of 'umdr productive efforts not only by Upper Peninsula employers tmt also by industrialists and businessmen in the Lower 7C) J 1' ... H... Peninsula and surrounding states. flarquette Employers.--There is a great diversification and stability of employment in Marquette. Employment at the Cliffs Dow Chemical plant, the largest chemical wood distil- lation plant in the Upper Peninsula, exceeded AGO persons in May, 1959. Included in the list of’major Marquette employers are the Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Railroad, Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railroad, the college, prison, St. Luke's and St. Mary's Hospitals, and city, state and federal depart- ments. Other important and consistent employers would include the telephone company, the Mining Journal, radio and television stations, Schneiders, Raish, and Ahonen Saw Mills, Brebner ihchinery Company, U.P. Generating Company, the bakeries, dairies, merchants, and many others Just as important. Marquette has become the headquarters of wholesale firms, general insurance, finance, and.audit companies. Economics of Tourism in Marquette County In recent years the influence of the vacationists has nude its mark on the economy of people in the county. By Luung milk as an example of one basic commodity of the farmers 1n.the area, the influence of the tourist trade can be illustrated. The following figures are from the summary Ofnulk handled through the Marquette market by the Michigan — l Ebasco Services Inc., Michigan's Upper Peninsula sing: Michigan Department of Economic Development, 1953) ifilk Producers Association: January ---- February --- MB. I‘Ch ...-an- April ------ May -------- June ------- July ------- August ----- September -- October ---- November --- December --- .1) \L) t-‘HHHI‘OMl—‘HHF—‘F—JP—J Q ' . '0 . . . ‘ . w . - «1 UDNNFJHNNCNOxb-(Tx O~‘\N\]’\] PH F0 Ir-VJUJNKN h: - J1 {DH bk}! p Q ‘ Q r H u Ir m The above table indicates an approximate maximum differ- ence of 700,000 pounds of class one milk between the low month of February and the high tourist month of August. One could J expect a similar difference in other basic commodities. D Figures supplied by the Our Own Eakery of Marquette indicate similar comparisons. There is nearly a doubling of the sales of bread, rolls and other bakery products during the months of high tourist influx.2 3 A recent publication by Robert W. McIntosh points out the importance of "tourism". "Tourism", as defined by McIntosh, is the business of accommodating and otherwise serving the Vacationing public. He states that the recent opening of the Straits of Mackinac Bridge has focused attention on the Upper Peninsula and prospects for its future development. Since ..k lMelvin N. Nyquist, Marquette County Agricultural Agent, Know Ma uette Count , mimeographed report, 1956. 21bid. 3Robert W. McIntosh, "Measuring the 195:7"TO‘JI‘18t and Resort Business in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. ________P___B'lsiness T0 105: Vblume 6: Number 1, July, 1935. 41 Peninsula becoming a major part of the sezncmy. Recent sales taxes collected on food sold in the Upper *3 ,J- (L) D: O O 3 (A) ,4. DJ Peninsula v erably by months during the year. The gs differences between the cost of food purchased yearly by permanent residents and actual total food sold was attributed essentially to food purchased by tourists and vacationists.1 The principal tourist months for most of the Upper Peninsula are July and Aug st. There is also an influx of hunters during the Michigan deer season in the latter part of November. Much emphasis is on rrently being mad e of the equally advantageous times to visit the county during the "color season" in September and October. Winter sports are also receiving 1 creased emphasis with the addition of '15 facilities for skiing and other winter activities. Economic Side of Movie Filmed in Marquette County The decision of Hollywood Director-Producer Otto Premin- 59? to film practically all of the scenes of the movie I 'Anatomy of a Murder" in Marquette County was of economic 1mDortance to this area. The filming of the show was to result A in.$2oo ,000 to $250, 000 being left in the county dur ng the Period in which the company was here (Spring, 1959). . , 1? f‘ ‘v (.3 About two months was required to complete filming oi t. picture locally. During that time between 75 and 100 members Cfi’the movie colony stayed in Ishpeming and Marquette. These _. lIbid. it h) included actors, actresses, various directors, and technicians. Approximately 160 Marquette County extras, some having selected parts, were employed by the movie company. The majority of the extras appeared as spectators at the trial scenes. John D. Voelker, Michigan Supreme Court Justice, ibrmerly of Ishpeming, author of this "book of the year" (Anatomy of a Murder), based the story on a 1952 court trial in Marquette. The Effects of the St._Lawrence Seaway The St. Lawrence Seaway is expected to start a regional boom of trade and traffic along some of the ports of the Great Lakes. This might affect the ports of Marquette County. vessels under foreign registry would be able to dock in the county and an increase in lake shipping could be expected. Harbors of refuge are to be located not more than sixty Enles apart along the lake, so that no boat in tow will be nmre than thirty miles from a harbor. A $704,000 project is slated for the Big Bay area as a imrbor of refuge. The harbor of refuge at Big Bay will be constructed near Squaw Beach. It will have a channel eighty feet wide and twelve feet deep. Also a small boat facility, fifty feet wide on the north and south sides of the harbor of refuge and 100 feet on the east side, will be constructed. 1%3 318 Bay Harbor of Refuge is designed to break up the lone Custance between Marquette's harbors and Portage Entry at Hancock and Houghton . futura‘ 3?: for the Upper Peninsula . L- . m-a‘=‘.—-‘ "‘ ‘4 The Upper Peninsula has been seeking a natural gas line for years to fuel lean iron ore beneficiation plants and serve other industrial and domestic markets. Its hopes for natural gas, its first in history, rest on the outcome of negotiations over its cost to consumers. The gas is Western Canada's, now ready to be tapped for feeding to mines and other industry above the Straits of Mackinac. Governor M. Williams said the gas could mean a rebirth of the mining industry and would permit Upper Michigan to compete success- fully with foreign sources of iron ore.1 This certainly weuld have a beneficial =ffeot on the economy of Marquette County. Atomic Energy for the Upper Peninsula Michigan Insurance Commissioner Frank Blackford sees in the two projects to enerate electricity from atomic ene gy in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, vast possibilities of future industrial growth in the Upler Peninsula. He believes that electric power from atomic energy can make t.e Upper Peninsula an industrial area.2 A plant is being built on Lake Erie, near Monroe, to Senerate electricity with atomic energy. Physicists and engineers at this plant said that Michigan is going to be one ‘. *— 1"Natural Gas for U.P. Hinges on Consumer Cost," ‘ Toe ‘ q r‘ 1 Karen l9, 19;?- Mininv Journal , Marque t t e . 2"Atomic Energy Seen Industrializing U.P.," Eh? Ninlflg W. Marquette, March 23, 1959. ' . ml}? i_‘ T " q a t V" "1‘, ?.'r‘ ‘ _'_ 5* anLcax’.C«n '. ' C1. x a A "f‘\“?1r‘ . ‘9 d (- 1‘ r- i no.1- J’ 4.7.» :C U29“; fil 4, ,. a . - 4“ "I .A. V‘ ‘ a u center 1 9:1 0 J. T - ~ ‘ S . d, - . ' v'f‘ "- ' O A A a. .l. 3 C C -. 1’: d c A 1-‘ . u pt ectri l ...-J C4" cf f flit: -1a1 I ‘ii 1‘1 fist ‘~ _,,. t c 12*»19 l he true because of Kichi"an's ths Grrat Iafeb. TF1" plant at HTu clactnicity experinenta ly in rcislly in ”epte her of 7961. A a‘ Petoskey. Therefcre, it is ror atovic energy will be utilizxd < ,- I - fl ‘ .A »“H fu+uze. However, at preSent, his“ : L ... - . z n . “0" . icy iron acetic e.wn-v would seen 3': o V. THE GEOLOGY OF HARQUETTE COUNTY The geology of Marquette County is recorded in the rocks found in this county. As Marquette County contains some of the oldest rocks found in Michigan, its geology dates back about two billion years to those pre-Cambrian rocks. The pre- Cambrian rocks are often divided into three great series-~the Archean, Huronian, and Keweenawan. Each series contains many smaller units, which represent different stages of sedimentary rock depositions, igneous intrusion, mountain building, and erosion. The Archean and Huronian are found in Marquette County and the Keweenawan is found to the northwest in the Dmrthern Peninsula of Michigan.1 _rchean Era According to geologists during the Archean era the Great Lakes area was a basin-shaped.lowland.(now known as the Michigan Basin) of granitic rocks bordering a granitic highland known as the Canadian Shield--the core of the North American con- tinent. The rim f this basin, consisting of Archean formations, can be seen in Marquette County (see Geological Maps, Figur (D C. u 4 and 5). L; 1Helen M. Martin, Outline of thelgeologic gistory of inchisan (Lansing: Geological Survey Division, Department of Conservation), pp.2-6. 46 'i‘ - MINNESOTA Geological Map of Michigan Helen M. Martin Poinro aux Chenos fm Sp Saginoaw Parma Group F; Engadino d°l Manistiquo series Sm Mississippian Burnt B u 55" Bayporl ls Mb Mayvillo fm Sm. Michigan series Ordovician Napoleon-Marshall Richmond OR 53 nm Tronron OT (BioldWEfezf 5!:‘ Mc Black Rivor 03R "w' ° or Mbb Ozarkian Ellsworth 3" M0 Hermansvillo ¢H Mississippi-Devonian Cambrian Anmm s D Ma Lake Superior so CLS F D _ I Algonkian "MIG" Killarnoy granlra AkY Traverse fm DT Keweenawan Al: Rogers City I; D": Freda ss, Nonesuch Dundee ls Dd sha Aku Doiroii River mgroup Ddr Huronian Ah Bois Blan Dbb Huronian iron fms N sYlvanionc as D: Archean Garden Island fm Dgi Laurenfian' RI. Mackinac breccia D-Sm Kcewatin AK l_l—_B—r'—r—.uu 1955 A revision of tho Centennial Geological Map {I A a t s Q 0 legend Pennsylvanian Silurian Rod Bonds, Grand River 5’ l9""‘50 f CAIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION GEOLOGICAL 3U§VEY DIVISION R JR“? - :1:\ Figure 4 \ DOMION 0' CANADA lN/YEF/SN %. 4b h . aim-~- _ fi7®j 'DP)‘ ' luncv “A‘V OIIIGUI f. ..uw igj kgiglm Ike 1 :- Q .Zfirl— V I K °~--‘-_--:‘V.——— +IA L 'I IA 6 0 + ’ A.” I l (I a :V/1 .__. . —- --—-— ' * .f! 1 MC T a. o . at W are: " . I . o A ,5} M m \ _ I, {on lllulll '°“° on fiMd ° $0 't [f . u ‘9 a g 4: L-"_ c "4/ 'u I“. j a/ k I |.' c (-4" . i ‘U E‘s‘ I‘LJOIIDM u J “DIANA :5- i' 47 Figure 5 GEOLOGICAL MAP HURON MOU/V TA //I/ MARQUETTE COUNTY MIONGAN Miles _—-I 6 3 0 6 Scale of Source: Geological EEE of Michigan by Helen M. Maan Geological survey Division Department of Conservation DQDIIDCD ...-’0... -<-IZCOO I I <42COO zom— I I R 30W DICKINSON aoo‘oe 0.00.0...000 EEMAE 0133- ORDCVICIAN (Black River) ¢II — OZARKIAN (Hermansviue) CLS- CAMBRIAN (Lake Superior 53). Ah-AUXMKIMI(Hurmflan) T¢12 N 0 ~- " (Huronian Iron FormationsXOBOOOlmQ J 9299229925 ' ARLP ARCHEAN (Laurentian) ARK- ARCHEAN (Keewatin) ( 00000600: 0000000 MENOMINEEl COUNTY ’ ."N 9;; U} eriod of Archean Era.-—The Keewa‘ : ter_oi estimated to have occurred about two billion years ago. Rocks formed during this period are the oldest known rocks in Laurentian Period of_Archean Era.--The Laurentian Period occurred about 1,200 million years ago. Rock types typical for this period include schist, granite and gneiss. The .....I dominant ife during this period was blue-green algae and possibly single-celled marine animals. v-n fluronian Period of Algonkian ara.--Overlying and over- lapping the Archean rocks of the Canadian Shield are the next in age, the Huronian formation. The Huronian Period began about 1,050 million years ago. A shallow sea covered much of what is now the Northern Peninsula of Michigan. Weathering produced sediments that were washed into the seas. Primitive plants and animals appeared in the seas. Bacteria and chemical *d recesses removed and deposited iron and lime salts from solution. The Huronian iron formation was laid down at this time, as well as the thick sedimentary rocks-~limestone, shale and sandstone. Iron formation is a banded sedimentary rock commonly composed of layers of silica alternating with layers 0f iron minera a. Four separate zones of iron formation are in the H ronian but only two have furnished commercial ore. Pre-Cambrian banded iron formations are found in only a few other places on the earth s surface, principally Labrador- Quebec, Manchuria, India, Brazil, and the Krivoy Rog area in Russia. Later intrusions of granite changed some of the Huronian sedimentary rocks to marble, iron ore, slate, schist, and quartzite. The Huronian period lasted 2’0 million years and ended with movements of the earth's crust and volcanic activity. Keweenawan Period of alggnxian Era.--The Keweenawan Period which followed lasted.for 250 million years. It was a period of volcanism followed by quiet lava flows of copper- bearing magma, alternating with times of erosion of the lavas, which produced sandstones and conglomerates. Although the Keweenawan rocks are not exposed in Marquette County, the iron fermation and other Huronian rock were complexly folded during these pre-Cambrian stages of mountain building and volcanism. Elem this period on, the area of the Michigan Basin (east of the meridian of Marquette) glowly sank. Paleozoic Era During the Paleozoic Era mountain building and deposition were going on in eastern North.America. During the Paleozoic, the seas made six major*incursions into the Michigan Basin with xmny minor ebbs and flows, so that for more than 515 million yéars the Michigan Basin was at times filled with a sea, and —_ a lReed, Robert 0., Michigan Iron Mines (Lansing: Gecl. unwey Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1957). p.3. at times was land, desert, and swamp. Plants lived on land and in the sea. Animals became air breathers on land in the middle of the Paleozoic time. At times, the seas teemed with life and the muds at the bottom of ti , ) (D C) ( c s» (I) U‘ (D O Si) E .3 (D D L? 1 'D k +- (D "S F;- \D U) as corals, clams, snails, shelled creatures and others died. As seas ebbed, sediments hardened to rocks that became the floor of the next invading sea. Cambrian Period of Paleozoic Era.--The Cambrian Period was the first period of the Paleozoic Era. It began about 550 million years ago. It was during this period that the Cambrian Lake Superior sandstone, which is very prominent in Marquette County, was laid down as sands. This sandstone is economically important as a source of fresh water and building stone. Shale is also a rock type of this period. The first inverte- brates appeared during this period and trilobites were dominant. The climate was mild. Ozarkian Period of Paleozoic Era.--The Ozarkian Period is not considered a major period of the Paleozoic Era. However, in Marquette County, the Hermansville Formation of the Ozarkian Period is an important formation.in the southeastern part of the county. Dolomite, sandy dolomite, and sandstone are the mmunant rock types of this period. Qrdovician'Periodgf the Palegzgig_§§a.--Rocks of the (hdovician Period are found in the southeastern corner of Phrquette County. They are chiefly limestone and dolomite. immine invertebrates abounded in the mild climate of the 31 Orlovician and the first primitive vertebra+es appeared. .sils of these early forms are found in the limestone roca. an about 4&5 million years ago and ended about The ordovician is the younyest rock formation found in ihrquette County. (The four remaining major periods of the Paleozoic are younger in age--the Silurian, Devonian, mississ- ippian, and Pennsylvania. These rock formations are not found in this county but do occur farther south and east in the ibrthern Peninsula, but mostly in the Southern Peninsula of iflchigan, more toward the center of the bowl-like basin.) See Figure 4. There is no fossil record of the Mesozoic Era in Mich- igan. The Mesozoic was the age of dinosaurs. The rocks in iflchigan were subjected to erosion during this period and the geologic record is lost. Elsewhere, the Rocky Mountains were uplifted. It began about 200 million years ago. Cenozoic Era No records of the Early Cenozoic are found in Michigan. It was the age of the early mammals. After the bedrock had eroded to roughly the present altitudes, the Pleistoceie Period began. Pleistocene Period of the Cenozoic Era.--The Pleistocene o , M -dndod, or the Ice Are, began about one z“illion years ago and - «’l - 9‘~' D we». Ibrth Am continent “In $.81 over rquette County striae eroded bedrock m sses by the tails rock knobs. are in {L} \ P - ., r‘ a .. ‘. a QC yeadngtuno. uurln: this ._ 1 ~ ,A K v l aiaci;rs spread orer uucn v .- .- 43" . Two or mor ad,ances o- the direction of the rials deposited in the the stone age of ian was the do :inant life. Recent Pepiod of t that the Recent Period b N 00 melting of the glacier snow and ice left the ar higher knobs of rock and at higher levels immediately followinj the melting 0 than they do today. and Nipissin" were the ancestria 1 Lake Superior.1 The of former lakes Alronqu n and Cippissinj can be found in thrquette County as their water levels were higher than the of the present Lake Superior. Some of these beaches are ind Figure 6. It is certain that earlier time in this pe By the many swamps, peat k . 1Helen M. Fri Ch. Lakes Brule, icated on the "Surface Formations Rap 4. 'V PiOQ Martin (ed), Y Dept. of Conservation, 1942), p.57. he .— ,\ l egan about ,000 The melting of thousands ea a lake or swamp except glacial drift. The Great Ontonagon, many more inland lake than exist today. This ”eds, and muck ~v bog a, marl They Need movement, Cenozoic Era.--}eologis‘ years ag 7.3 the ice lee a J. human h CS 0 "v'ith of feet Q for the Lakes is evid i nds wh Not laniih (Lansir ,3: claim ) S x .L indicated by the direction of the carved on the bedrock, by the elongated axes of certain and the of stood beaches (‘3 of Karquette County", s existed at an '— 4 ."s t 3‘ n \J ‘ Duluth, 'Al_“onqui n, ej today contain little cn~xms visahle tffi+d . It is also apparent '3 that many lakes were ler.er than at present. As the glaciers melted they e1t behind as tills and plains such unconsolidated materials as maid gra vel and boulders. The glacial deposits filled the deeper bedrock vallw s and occur as a covering; over nost of the remainder of thearea. In hichigan, the thickness of this covering of glacial drift ranges from a few inches to one thousand feet. 1 he greatest known timic ness is 233 feet. ('9' In La arquette County Deposits of two or rore adt ance:s of the glacier are common, and the interglaci al erosion of these deposits is indicated in several areas by reworked till and outwash deposits over- lain by a younger till. The Recent Period lasts until the present. Erosion of glacial drift and of bedrock; the procession of the shallow lakes to swamps, bogs, or marshe ; an nd the formation of or3anic soils are some of the geological processes continuing to change the physical features of the county. 1W. T. Stuart, E. A. Brown, and E. C. Rhodehamel, Ground V$ier Investie ati one of the Ifarouette Iron-s niQE District \TeChnical Report 3; Laneing G801. LUI‘Irey Div. ‘11Ch. Dept. Of Conservation and U. S. EBDL. of Interior. 19543 Po?“- VI. SURFACE FORKATIONS OF MARQUETTE COUNTY Rock At or Near_the_§urface The surface formations of the northern half of Marquette County consist primarily of the nunerous outcrops of pre- Cambrian rocks. The generally strong resistance of these rocks to degradation and weathering has resulted in an area of high bedrock altitudes resembling a plateau with locally rough topography. The tops of most of the highland masses range from 1,600 to 1,800 feet in altitude and are covered with a thin layer of glacial debris. In general, the local relief of the bedrock is moderate, the valleys being about 200 to 300 feet deep. However, cliffs of 783 feet are found in the county.1 The relatively nonresistant rock formations have been partially eroded forming depressions which filled with glacial sediments. The surface materials of the county, except for the bed- rock outcrops, may be roughly classified into three types: moraines (till), outwas., and lake (lecustrine) deposits. ioraines or ill The rock debris the glaciers carried and deposited is known as glacial drift or till. Areas of stagnation of the ice mass is marked by a ridge of unstratified soil materials —‘ — g. 1W. T. Stuart. et al., Ground Water Investiqatigns, ODOCitO p.324. _ 54 55 8. Outcrops of Pre-Gambrian rock. 56 dumped by the glacier. These ridges or high hnclls of till are called moraines. The moraines H Q3 re scattered throughout rxuette County (see Surface Formation Mao, Fijure 63. The till which formed in the moraines may have been deposited on land or in water. When de csite o A d in the water, the till became somewhat stratified. These moraines are called water-washed moraines. They are found over a consider- able portion of central Marquette County. The ground moraines or till plains were formed as the glacier retreated (melted) dropping an uneven load of debris. The till consists of unsorted to roughly sorted mixtures of rlacial sand, gravel, and clay, usually associated with cobbles and boulders. In the areas of the ground moraines, the surface is moderately rolling to flat. Outwash and Glacial Channels The outwash is stratified, fairly clean, coarse sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders laid down by streams and melt- water from the glacier. The general lack of concentrations of fine materials, such as clay and silt, is characteristic. The major areas of outwash are characterized by fairly large flat plains or aprons. In some places these plains are dimpled with (3 .its caused by melting blocks of ice deposited with the sand and gravel. This form is called a pitted cutwash plain. Several topographic forms resulted from the deposits of sediment-laden glacial streams of water in and under the ice. Emkers and kames are examples of these found in Marquette County. 57 _ Figure 6 SURFACE FOMTIONS N- HURON --------- moan/mm “"2 ,re MARQUETTE COUNTY MICHIGAN Source: J_ of the surface Formations 95— the Northern Peninsula of M1 an. I§57 Compiled bTHeIen M. Martin Geological Survey Division Department of Conservation DOD”)!!! / N -<—QZCOO .A _ . ,‘ our": C‘:. .' ‘ ,, 1' u Rock at or near surface - Swamp complexes of dunes, T 42 NE "ales and sand ridges l MENOMINEE D — Sand, Sand dunes, Lake bed sand: I COUNTY l --- -- - Glacial lake shore lines (N —Nipiasing, A -Algonquin, D -Du1uth) ulacial channels may appear as long, narrow, winding ridges of sand, gravel and boulders. These are called eskers. Eskers in this area are about 200 to l,OGC feet long and rise from about ten to thirty feet above the surrounding land surface.1 These ridges were formed by deposition of sand and gravel in streams, presumably entrenched, within or below the glacier. As eskers were not designated on the Surface Form- ation Map, locations of a few eskers found in Township A? North, Range 27 West, of Marquette County follow: One esker in the northwest one-quarter of Section 5, trends in a north- northwest direction for 1000 feet. It is between ten and 200 feet wide and 15 feet in height. Another esker in the north one-half of the south one-quarter, of the northeast one-quarter, of Section 5, is 400 feet long, twenty to fifty feet in width, and about 15 feet in height.2 Outwash also occurs in the form of kames. Kames are knolls of irregular shape containing roughly sorted sand and gravel. They are often deposited in potholes near the edge of the glacier. Locations of two kames found in Township 47 Ebrth, Range 26 West, in Marquette County follow: In the south one-half, of the southeast one-quarter of Section 8, trending in a north-south direction, is found a kame 50 feet in height. It is 500 to 600 feet in length and 50 to 300 feet in width. One nearby with the same legal description is 400 feet in length, 15 to 25 feet in width, and 15 to 25 feet in height. h _ — 11"". To Stuart, Gt 31., Op001to, p.230 2Ibid., p.31. 59 It also trencs in a north-sou th direction.l Other land forms common to the outwash deposits are flat-topped terrace remnants alon3 the former drainageways and sluiceways. Sluiceways are fairly long, narrow, and rather steep-sided valley channels having either.small streams or no streams at all. The terrace remnants were formed by erosi n of the surroundin3 outwash, and the sluiceways are valleys glacial meltwatcrs. Slui ceways are com on in scoured out by the valley lowlands west of Ishpemins. They mark the location of glacial streams usually of considerable size concentratoi in a snail area. In many instances they are the long, narrow extensions of swans-tyne deposits lea din3 into outwash deposits. :tosits can be classified into two basic 0 £1. ,1. J wanp-ty_e types: (1) those in the morainal areas, raving a surface dep posit of decay ed vege tal debris and underlain by till, and (2) those in the outwash plains, 3enerally at lower alt itudes. The latter contain as veral types of surface deposits which may 4. U (T) L L4 9.) be sand, gravel, decayed vegetal m —r and duck, resemblin muskeg, usually underlain by outwash. Lake beds composed of laoustrine deposits possess the characteristic topographic form of a plain res ultin up from the flat-lying beds. They may be flnvuaffrom glacial lake deposits or from post-,2; lac al lake de sits. If formed from the glacial lake deposits they may be ompos ed preiominantly of clays. If fbrmed from post-glacial lake deposits they may consist Fudmarily of bedded sand and gravel which includes decayed k 1Ibid., p.31. 60 .~ q 4 n f“ 9 ‘ ~ depOLits form a Small percentage of the ‘0 C1: vegetation. Lane by area in Marquette County. Wherever larje lakes develop, waves and currents wash sands on shore. The wind piles the dry sands into hills known as dunes. For many miles along the Lake Superior shore- line in Karquette County, the wind has piled up sand and sand dunes. Not all the sand dunes are along the lake shores, for some are many miles inland. T.ese were placed there by the Winds of ancient times on the shores of ancient lanes, such as Lake Algonquin and later by Lake Nippissing. The largest dunes in Michigan were made in Lake Nippissing times. Dunes usually have gentle windward and steep leeward slopes. Most of the inland sand and sand dune areas in Marquette County are well covered with vegetation. SOURCE OF NARQUETTE COUNTY [‘1 The Iron and Iron Ore of Karguette_ggunty Iron occurs in over 1,000 known minerals and is found in small amounts in almost every known type of rock. In only a few of these minerals, however, is the iron present in sufficient amounts or in the proper form to permit economical extraction by industry. Iron Ore is that portion of an iron- bearing rock formation which is economically available for use in the manufacture of metal. Iron ore has been the leading mineral product of Michigan for the last forty years. It is also the leading mineral of Marquette County. The chemical analysis, rather than the mineral compos- ition, is of most significance to the users of iron ore. Hence, chemical analyses are made routinely in connection with the mining, m-rketin3, and smelting operations. These analyses are standardized and consist of determinations of the percent- ages of those constituents in the ore which are of most import- ance to the iron and steel metalurgist, i.e., iron, phosphorus, silica (8102), manganese, alumina (A1203), lime (CaO), magnesia 0&9), sulfur, and also the amounts of volatile matter and of nmisture. In special instances, determinations are made also Ofidtanium, lead, zinc, copper and arsenic, and less 61 62 'Q 4, 1 frequently of sore of tne numerous rarer elements present. Formation of Iron Q:e_§cposits Geologists tell us that about a billion years ago the Lake Superior Region was under a shallow, marine sea. The highland rock masses surrounding the area were attacked by weathering. The highlands wore down so that finally the streams were too sluggish to carry any materials except those in solution or suspended in the water. Iron and silica com- pounds were deposited on the bottom. The iron-rich sediments accumulated, either by chemical action, by the work of bacteria, by both, or perhaps by some other force. Gradually over a span of many millions of years the iron and silica deposits which were build up in some places reached a thickness of 2,000 feet. This sequence containing 20-25% iron is what we now refer to as iron formation. The period of quiet deposition of iron formation came to an end when movement of the earth's crust formed new highlands. Rapid erosion was resumed and layer after layer of muck and sand accumulated on top of the iron formation. In some places volcanic action added layers of molten or igneous rock. (In the Marquette area, however, igneous activity was limited to the intrusion of dikes and sills into the Huronian rocks.) Eventually, the iron formation was covered to a great depth. Under the weight of the overburden, the iron-bearing muds hmre compressed. Then vast mountain-building forces crumbled, —; Lb lLake Superior Iron Ores, op.cit., p.63. l f t] ‘\)J squeezed, shattered and elevated the formations. Pressure and heat changed or metamorphosed the sedimentary rocks. Injec- tions of molten masses affected their chemical composition and grain size. Weathering and erosion began wearing down the new struct- ures. As the overlying rocks were removed, the iron formation was exposed in places to the chemical action of surface waters. Some of the ironzninerals that had been deposited on the see bottom in the absence of any oxidizing action were not stable in the presence of oxygen. They combined with it to form other minerals. These other minerals are the iron oxides, hematite and goethite. The silica in the iron formation was replaced in some areas by these newly formed iron oxides. Where this happened to a sufficient degree, the iron content in the rock increased from an original 20-25% to 50-60%. This silica replacement by oxidized iron within the iron formations took place where proper conditions existed. Therefore, the present mineable ore bodies are often widely scattered masses found within the bands of iron formation. It has been estimated that less than one per cent of the iron formation has been converted to useable ore.1 Finally, about ten to twenty thousand years ago, the advance of the glaciers left large parts of the area covered by a mantle of boulders, gravel, sand and clay, thus today _ lMichi an's U er Peninsula Iron Ore Industr (Cleveland: Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, et al., 195 . p.,. 64 making it more difficult to determine accurately the position of the iron formation. However, outcroppings of iron ore appeared in places on the surface, and it was here that the original mines were developed, following the outcroppings. The Locatign_pf_the Marquette Iron Range The outcroppings of iron ore occur as edges of a canoe- shaped syncline extending from the shore of Lake Superior near Marquette, through the Ishpeming-Negaunee area, westward to Lake Michigamme where it opens into a broad basin. The syncline contains the great body of iron ore deposits that comprise the Marquette Iron Range. The structures within the syncline are extremely compli- cated, with many folds, faults, and intrusions. The tightly folded basin of iron formations and associated rocks is approximately 33 miles in length and three to six miles in width. The vein of iron is from 1000 to 15,000 feet thick, and is found at distances varying from 2,600 to 4,000 feet below the surface.1 It is richest below the east-central part of the county, and becomes less so westward. In the vicinity of Palmer, a faulted segment from the main range is called the Palmer district. To the south of lake Michigamme and extending south-east to Republic, a tightly folded trough of iron formation and its southern extension is called the Republic district.2 The outline of 1C. R. VanHise and w. 8. Bayley, The Marguette Iron- Emaring District of Michigan (Vol. XXIII; Washington, D.C.: Dept. of the Interior, 1897). 13.2. 2Robert C. Reed, Michigan Iron Mines, op.cit., p.10. . RE UDCOCCMDN C09 23 we “chm: 7% m was.) r1. Lsnzm at we. .nvuam . 2.31407 0 .umcmw .25.: rauvjjgnn Jim ,EV 93.3.31, :93 5.4.3: new ”39.,“ Lang lfimfim Q'llolla some Tame ,_ z x . , / _ , , _ head‘s _ 0..”de . r I _ 533.qu 5.: ofiflm .3 @833 . , d l, . cowpaanom couH oocddmoz no monousoil \/ W / / 234 success: a orsmaom / _ / fie 5% Scooaflm a .. z 33 347/ _ _, . a3; mfipaupcoocoo m. 4H Ll Ll 05.: ecsoumuoucs 8 t|_| unansaoiv// {/ d. Sid .\ a aims III) 95,. a: A/ / _ fl _ Se is 93 l. l t A--\\\\n hoEH\ \ a Mdaah a /V.m VJ /d\m /ll..\ . an)\aInMWIdI/9\v\\n\\\’/.// \ pooscuoem one , //€Honsm£ a u/f/ a \\mmMSHIem ;: a. J 2:: X _ AM llnrb NF:/ 8. II ../C.Oflm...maM£o \\ 4H. s an J’s/i1 if: f .\ a 1 $ ' e //l ...... ... DEN II/ x. a“. «4...: gr... BOHDO I .P . D I (l//I‘\lfllll|Ill|\l\’m/r NIB. mug zomH Ebomg 2H 32H: mo 23HH<0QH + t as. air unaamfigofd I/ + r 66 9. The Marquette Iron Range--Mather "B" Mine. 10. Iron mines near Ishpeming--Cliffs Shaft Mine. 67 the Marquette Iron Range is shown in Figure 7, page 65, Shipments of Iron Ore from the Marquette Iron Range Mining on the Marquette Iron Range has continued steadily since 1849. Through 1955, shipments from this range totaled 283,680,605 tons; 244,268,577 tons from the main basin, 12,785,258 from the Gwinn district, 8,751,002 tone from the Republic district, and 17,895,678 tons from the Palmer district.l During 1955, 6,659,966 tons of ore were shipped from eleven mines, three siliceous open pits, and two concentration plants. A summary of the iron ore shipments through 1955 from the Marquette Iron Range is shown below in Table 4. The active and the abandoned mines are listed with their gross tonnage, and the years when shipments were made from the mines. The active mines are indicated in the Table by an asterisk follow- ing the name of the mine. TAEKE 4 IRON ORE SHIPMENTS THROUGH 1955 MARQUETTE IRON RANGE, F RQUETTE COUNTY MARQUETTE DISTRICT ¥ Mine Gross Tons Years of Shipments Adams 242 348 1913-1924 American-Boston 1,8h6:643 1880-1896, 1906-1922 fthens-Bunker Hill* 13,612,100 1918-1995 zerasa 8,768 1903 —__ 1Robert C. Reed, Iron Ore Shipments Throushilaii (Geological Survey Division, Department of Conservation, Unpublished, 1956), p.8. TABLE 4-Continued. Mine Barnes-Hacker Beaufort Bessie Blueberry* Cambria-Jacksona* Champion* Chase Group Cleveland Lake Cliffs Shaft* Curry Detroit East Champion Edison (Concentration) Empire Excelsior Fitch Foster Foxdale Gibson Goodrich Greenwood* Hortense Howell-Happock Humboldt Humboldt* (Concentration) Imperial Jackson Lackawanna Lake Angeline Lake Sally Lake Superior Group Lloyd* Lucy Maas* {arquette Mary Charlottee Mather“ Michigamme Michigan Milwaukee-Davis Mitchell Morris* National Negaunee Pkgaunee Construction works (Concentration) New England New York NonDareil Norwood 25,105,189 9.575.401 622,797 18,672,886 268,071 6.918.665 14,463,564 955.880 4.459 555.022 255,750 994639749 155.884 22,735,479 12,708 110,506 1,124,182 23.395 5,753 Years of Shiome )J F0 HRMN no I \ ...J ’4 ‘I \ _) -‘) - L). Q ~/ ," ’ .5 1929-195- 1874-1955 \ vi) 3 tJFJF‘ I I ( \f) U) I1) 10*Q‘J 1 0, 1 O , 9 2- 9 ~ .1 C \J nt ~19O ‘1) 1 1868-1910, 1949-1955 1885-1897, 1915-1916 1554-1927 1868-1955 1889 1882-1890 1875-1885 1889 1997-1988 1872-1879 1890-1892 1868-1903 1901-1905 1885-1887 1875-1882 1932-1955 1087-1890 1875-1874 1865-1892, 1908-1917 1954-1955 1882-1892,'99-15,'22-33 1846-1924 1886-1888 1864-1922 1865-1916 1858-1957 1911-1955 1870-1915 1907-1955 1860-1892 1872-1948 1888-1905, 1945-1955 1872-1905 1872-1873 1879-1915 1872-1913 1912-1955 1878-1884 1887-1949 1882-1886 1866-1873 1864-1919 1882-1887 1887-1888 TABLE 4-Continued. Ogden Ohio Ohio (Concentration)* Pascoe Pendill Phoenix Pioneer Portland Quartz r Rolling K1115 Queen Group Saginaw Salisbury Section 12 Spurr Steward Taylor Tilden* Titan Tracy Grouph* Webster Winthrop TOTAL Archibald Austin Francis Gardner-Mackinaw Princeton Stegmiller Stephenson TOTAL Columbia Erie Kagnetic ReDUblic ReDUblic Reduction Co. Riverside NOrth Republic TOTAL r—q - Gross Tons 657,024 477,803 406,175 59,806 45,993 59,114 15,409 272,056 491 2,997,802 8,195,123 451,424 4,489,102 21,887 164,244 2.937 32.970 4,436,649 90,371 1,804,372 7. 099 Years of Shipment 1,881,606 1,589,156 505,818 1,526,440 5,221,588 418,417 5,844,255 12,785,258 REPUBLIC DISTRICT 94,813 9,194 292 8,565,170 47,174 16,160 289 1897-1928 1907-1920 1952-1955 1882-1886 1878-1884 881-1887 1886-1888 1909-1915 1889 1871-1935 1886-1917 1872-1891 1872-1924 1879-1882 1873-1886 1874-1878 1880-1885 1929-1955 1882-1888 1870-1937, 1955- 1882-1900 1870-1903 1911-1937 1905-1929 1918-1939 1919-1941 1872-1947 1909-1917 1907-1941 1873-1883 1876-1883 1906 1872-1937 1887-1890 1888-1893 1888 TABLE 4-Continued. lune Gr es Tons Years of Shipment Carr 2, 580 1875-1874 Isabella 1,963,929 1916-1954 Maitland 1,021,189 1918-1928 Moore 87,769 1873-1904 Platt 73,844 1892-1896 Primrose 6,040 1896 Richards 8,261 1887-1897 Richmond, New* -4,224,437 1927-1955 Richmond, Old 3,604,913 1896-1926 Star West 209,115 1873-1911 Volunteer, New* 4,985,850 1926-1955 Volunteer, Old 1,705,971 1871-1916 TOTAL SUMMARY Marquette D18tP1Ct 000000000 244,268,577 tons GWinn Distr1Ct 0000000000... 12,785,258 " REPUblic DistriCt 0000000000 8,731,092 " Palmer DietriCt 000.000.0000 17,895,678 " TOTAL MARQUETTE RANGE: 283,680,605 tons a . H Includes Lillie and Hartford mines b Includes Dey and Dexter Mines 0 D V p 8, Includes sarnum, hero, and Pancrolt mines d Includes Sampson and Washington Mines eIncludes Allen, Chicago, East Chicago, Himrod and Bay State Mines. a ‘Includes Ames and East New York Mines L9 ’ - T “ ‘ v - 1'4" n, 1‘ ,~‘,- .. . 1_,.. l 2 ‘,'-fi 1 _ , ~ . - , I y ’ , _ . Y‘ o 4 $ ‘ ~' ii. ‘1‘ a. J ,‘ , r ,. c_l_ ... . ‘ ' a, g. \-' LA 5’ Includes Breitung-Rematite, Lucky Star, and Manganese. Source: Data on shipments were compiled from Lake ESuperior Iron Ores, 1938 and 1952, published by the Lake SuDerior Iron Ore Association. Data since 1952 were taken from annual reports of the Lake Superior Iron Ore Association. Chmted from: Iron Ore Shipments Through 1955, compiled by Fmbert C. Reed, Geological Survey Division. Department Of Conservation, Lans ing- 71 11. Loading ore into pockets on the ore dock. . , ' .- - . . . -_ . .‘,1 » ‘1“.- 7 ' v ”T .‘ o 4 4“. .. , - ' launulmul”lulu-01mm" 1 I III II! W '5' ‘l' ‘MM’ ‘1' ‘4' ‘l' q- .- W-flu Ulluv u. =- Havana-vnwutuuuamfl \(‘1 1111131: 111:” "v .‘ 1).! \"R U 1!! l!!!l!ll Itfih;\‘£IUW-J-l'l8! ea- ll .n_fll-'l_'I-"-f- 12. Loading ore from the dock into ore boat. Mining Companiee.--T e value of the iron ore produced in Marquette County in 1950 amounted to over 48 million dollars. It was produced by six mining companies. These companies ar (L, listed in the table below alon“ with the active nines they operate and the location of these mines. TABLE 5 MINING COMPANIES AND LOCATION OF MINES 1. The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, Clevelgnd, Ohio Bunker Hill Mine, Negaunee, Sec. 6, T47N, R26W Cambria-Jackson, Ishpeming & Negaunee, Sec. 55, 36, T48N, R27w Cliffs Shaft Mine, Ishpemi 3, Sec. 3, 9, 10, T47N, 827W *#Humboldt Open Pit, Humboldt Twsp., Sec. 10, 15, T47N, R29W Lloyd-East Lloyd Mine, Ely Twsp., Sec. 6, T47N, 827W Maas Race Course Mine, Negaunee, Sec. 31, T48N, R26W Mather "A" Mine, Ishpeming, Sec. 2, T47N, R27W Mather "B" Mine, Negaunee, Sec. 1, T47N, R27W *7Republic Open Pit, Republic Twsp., Sec. 7, T46N, R29W ¥Tilden Open Pit, Tilden Twsp., Sec. 26, T47N, R27W 0 L. . M. A. Hanna Company, Cleveland, Ohio #New Richmond Open Pit, Richmond Twsp., Sec. 27, T47N. 827W 2g__;nland Steel Cogpany, Chicago, Illinois GreenWOOd Mine. Ely Twsp., Sec. 14, 25, T47N, R28w Morris Mine, Ely Twsp., Sec. 1, 2, T47N, R288 3;. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation1 Pittsburgh, Penn. Tracy Mine, Negaunee, Sec. 7, 8, T48N, R26W 5:1 North Range MininggCompany, Negaunee. Michigan Champion Mine, Champion Twsp., Sec. 31. TASK: 829“ éL—lfléfiéfléé_figther and.Company, Cleveland, Ohio #VOIunteer-Maitland Open Pit, Richmond & Tilden Twsps., 390- 25. 30, T47N, R26w ——-‘ :Low Grade Iron Ore Development :Open Pit Mines , 1 Source: Geological Survey Division,ohichigan s Minors: §E§0urces (Department of Conservation; 1929777Po90- Production of ”rd‘v‘iial Iines.--A compar son of the tons of iron ore mined and the tons snipped from the mines of the Marquette Iron Range is shown in the table which follows: TABLE 6 TONS OF IRON HIRED AND SHIPPED FROM THE NARQUETTE RANGE 1957 Mine Tons Mined Tons Shipped Athens-Bunker Hill 488,897 402,067 Cambria-Jackson 169,400 17C,087 Champion 195,377 172,029 Cliffs Shaft 760,695 670,8:5 Greenwood 62,384 40,256 Humboldt 285,206 179,185 Ideas 60,038 355,683 Rather "A" 1,350,201 1,561,260 Mather "B" 1,296,499 1,2’8,511 Morris 09,150 295,686 Ohio Concentrator 116,701 116,701 Republic 525,860 220,355 Tilden 201.161 192,~2 Tran-v :00 CS7? 12‘7 v r ., :‘ :r’:..,“ ;,':"--’ volunteer :0,t31 8“, '1 L10Yd ...—....-- ,,2 Total 6,655,946 5,992,772 Source: H. J. Hardenberg, and R. C. Reed 1957 General {1‘ Statistics Covering Cos s 9 1. and Production gf Richigan Irwn Mines (Geological Survey Livision, Mimeographed tabulation, 1957), p.1. Department 0 Three of the mines, Cliffs Shaft, Greenwood, and (fimmpion, produce a very hard hematite, much of which is of the lump variety.1 hm fed directly into the open hearth furnace, thus bypassin reduction in the blast furnace. The lump ore is desirable because it can 'c t (7 The Republic, Humboldt, and Ohio mines are associated lRobert c. Reed, Michigan Iron Mines, op.cit., p.9. 7; with concentration plants where the lower grade iron foreation is made into a saleable product by separating the iron from the undesirable silica. A siliceous iron ore is produced from the Tilden, Vblunteer and Richmond Open pits. A small amount of this ore is required in blast furnace operation. A direct shipping soft red hematite is produced from the other operating mines. Host of the soft hematite ore cones 5 from the northeastern part of the main iron range in the ( vicinity of Ishpeming and Necaunee. The Beneficiation of Low Grade Ores In the Lake Superior Region, there were three minerals which formed the bulk of the iron ores that were mined; namely, magnetite, hematite, and goethite. These are all chemical compounds of iron and oxygen and in their pure state contain about 72%, 70%, and 63% of iron respectively. More recently, through expensive research and technical developments, some parts of the iron fo mation which contain 1ess iron (25-30%) have become economic ores. These are the taconite ores in Minnesota and the jasper ores (Jaspilite or rmn-magnetic taconites) in Michigan. Taconite and jasper are so constituted that the iron oxide minerals in then can be physically separated from the silica. The process of concentrating these low-grade ores into a material suitable for blast furnaces is called benefici- ation. While the methods for separating iron oxides from the Silica corpounds vary with the special properties 0f the iron "\1 K oxides, in the end, a concentrate around 60} iron is ob‘ained. Briefly stated, the processing of jasper ore, which previously had not been commercially possible, involves the crushing and pulverizing of the rock to powder fineness to separate the particles of iron ore and waste rock. Then the iron ore particles are extracted by flotation methods. The froth-flotation process is one by which the finely ground rock is treated with chemicals and oils having an attraction for the iron minerals and having little or no effect on the much greater amount of waste material. The chemicals form a water-repellent film over the iron oxide mineral. In a mixture of properly conditioned ore and water, air bubbles are generated. The water-repellent iron minerals attach themselves to the bubbles and rise to the surface. They are then skimmed off as iron ore concentrate. The waste material remains submerged and is carried away in a fluid form to disposal areas especially prepared for the waster. (It has been estimated that 50 tons of water are required to process each ton of concentrated ore.) Finally, the iron powder is roasted into solid balls (pellets) about the size of a large marble suitable for shipment to the blast furnace. The first commercial beneficiation plant in Michigan, the Ohio, located just west of Michigamme in Baraga County, began production in 1952. This plant beneficiated low grade ore by a method involving crushing and heavy media separation. h11954, the first plant utilizing jasper ores went into Operation. 13. In the Mather ”B" Mine. The author is on the left. 1h. Pellets or iron--the final product of beneficiation. 77 Michigan now has two open pit, low-grade mines with beneficiation plants utilizing jasper ores. Both are located in Marquette County. The first to start operations was the Humboldt Mine in 1954, followed by the Republic Mine in 1956. The pelletizing plant for the Republic operation is at Eagle Mills, east of Negaunee. Gold in Marquette County The first discovery of gold in Michigan was made by State Geologist Douglass Houghton in Marquette County in 1845 near the very region where gold was later mined. The location was northeast of Teal Lake, near Negaunee and Ishpeming. Gold was found in quartz veins in the ancient Keewatin rocks, or in veins of peridotite. The gold is native or "free" gold. Ropes Gold Mine.--The most famous and productive gold mine was the Ropes Gold Mine from which over $625,000 worth of gold was taken. In 1891, Julius Ropes, of Ishpeming, opened the Ropes Gold and Silver Mining Company on the south half of the northwest one-quarter of Section 29, Township 48 North, Range 27 West. In 1886, from 6,959 tons of rock, the mine produced $h3,499.93, or $6.20 per ton net, or $8.10 per ton gross. In 1891, 31,578 tons of rock yielded $65,240,67 net. The mine continued in operation until 1897, having produced $647,902.37 out of the $666,485.73 with which Marquette County (the Ishpeming gold field) is credited.l. ——_‘ 1Alfred 0. Lane, Sixth AnnuaLRerrt 3;; the State QEOIOgist, op.cit., p.157. The Ropes hine had suns about (15 levels) M5 feet and 5" :0 D.» Q; '3 H w H (D Q; I;- 5 I \H U H, m (D .+ O No gold has been proitced.in the state since the closing of the Ropes i’ine in 1897, except some gold obtained by a reworking of com e of the tailings of this mine. When the price of gold was increased in the 1950's, many individual prospect- ors worked the tailings at the mine, in some instances panning out day wages from the discarded ore.l Other Gold Mines in Marquette County.--About two miles and a half west of the Ropes Mine, on Section 55, Town 48 North, Range 28 West, was the Richigan Gold Mine, discovered in 1888. This property produced some of the finest specimens of res gold.2 However, it only yielded a total of about $90,000. In 1932, a stock company reopened the mine, and produced about $6,000 in bullion. This second attempt ended in the fall of 1937. Just west of the iiichigan‘ ii ine was Gold La? e Mine which was not as extensive as the other two because the vein pinched out at a depth of do feet.3 Two other mines, the Superior in Section 55, Township 1Michigan State Administrative Board, Michigan. A Guide {3 the Wolverine Stat e (New York: Oxford University Press, 550 2:: 0. Allen, (director) Mineral Resources of Michigan with Statistical Tables of production andgyalge of mineral“— prducts for 1910 and p_ior years (Pub.73, Geol. Series 63 lensinE: Ge Eol. and Eilolg ical Survey, Dept. of Conservation, 1912) p. 359. Geolo: ical Survey Division, Productior aai Value of lflneral Frodu~ts in ‘ichigan for 1924. 192213926 and Friar Yoars Pub. 37, “ea Serie es 51; Lansing: 6,1. of ConseEEa- Sion! 1928) (.1. )7. 79 #3 North, Range 29 West, and the Peninsula Nine in Section 25, in the same township, were started about the same time. Neither were of any particular importance. The Dead River area north of lshpening was the scene of other gold discoveries. This river basin is located about eight miles north of Ishpeming. The Fire Center Mining _Company put down two shafts in Section 33. Township 49 North, Range 27 West. Work was started here in 1892 and abandoned in 1398. Some of the ore found here showed very encouraging results. There have been a few other reported occurrences of gold in the Dead River ar. , but none of these have developed "D 93 beyond the prospecting sta e. With cessation of work at the (s- ' (._ L, H Ropes, Michigan and the Fire center mines, interest gradually drOpped in the possibility of finding a profitable gold mine in the region and very little further prospecting has been carried on. "This does not mean that this area does not contain profitable deposits of gold and silver but merely indicates that the old ventures w re not able to survive under the conditions that were in existence at that time."1 Gold has been reported in other parts of Michigan but there has been no occurrences that compare with the discoveries around Ishpeming. Most of these other reported finds of gold are placer or stream deposits. "It is possible that workable dBposits of placer gold may be found in and around the Ishpem- lug area but it is very unlikely that any gold of commercial importance will be found in the stream gravels of the lower 11b1d., p.133. fa. fl peninsula."l Other Minerals Found in Marquette County Copper, Zinc. Lead. and Silver.--The richest copper depos ts in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are found in the 'range that forms the backbone of the Keweenaw Peninsula, but copper appears in Marquette County to some extent both in ore and in natural form. Zinc and copper ores occur at varying depths throughout the peninsula, while veins of native copper and silver break the surface all along the northern shor CD The occurrence of naturally refined silver is rare, but the native COpper found in the county is malleable and very pure.2 Lead has also been found in Karquette County. On the north side of Presque Isle Park, north of the city of Marquette, is the site of a silver and lead mine, active in 1845. The summary of mineral products of Michigan for 1910 listed a quantity of 262,200 fine ounces of silver, with a value of $141,600.3 However, the locality of the mine in the Upper Peninsula was not reported in the summary. Marble.--Verde Antique and white marbles are found in Bhrquette County. The Michigan Verde Antique Marble Company opened a quarry and began operations in 1914. Production, however, was intermittent due to lack of transportation facilities and labor shortages. The material shipped consisted —___ —_ llbid. 2Michigan Historical Records Survey, op.cit., p.5. 3M1chigan Geol. a Biol. Survey. 1912. op.cito. p.442. 01 ...-J d! N O chiefly of etc for t (h ,7 J— 'rrazzo and stucco. no snipments have }-J been reported since 1223. Sandstone.--"Narquette Brownstone" (Cambrian Sandstone), a.dark, reddish-brown, ferruginous (iron cemented) sandstone was formerly quarried at Karquette and shipped to various cities on the Great Lakes. It was used extensively as a building stone in the era when brownstone fronts were in vogue. ihny of the older buildings in Marquette and other Northern Peninsula towns were constructed of this sandstone. In 1926, the only sandstone quarried in the city of Marquette was produced for concrete aggregate. According to Geological Survey reports, the decline of the sandstone industry cannot be attributed to inferior qualities of stone, but rather to changing styles in building stone. The compet- ition from brick and other artificial rock products was a ’3 factor in the decline of the sandstone quarrying industry.“ Stone.-—Stone has been an important product in Marquette County. In 1956, from Marquette County, the Bacco Construction Company produced about 63,614 tons of crushed dolomite stone. This was valued at $563,614.3 Sand and Gravel.--Accordin5 to the report of Michigan's Funeral Resources for the year 1956, Marquette County produced 477,470 tons of sand and gravel at a value of $548,875. The k. lMichigan Geol. Survey, Pub. 37, Series 31, 1928. 02300112. , p.87. 2Ibid., p.84. BSorenson and Carlson, Michigan's Mineral Resources (1998), 0p.cit., p.50. producers of sand and gravel in contributed production data to the Geolo ical Survey Division include the following: Lake uperior and Ishpomir n3? eilway Company; A. Lindberg and Sons, Incorporated; Marquette County Road Commission; and the Michi5an State s1.r w:y Department.l Miscellaneous Minerals Found in Marquette County.--Many other minerals, and some 5am stones are found in Marquette County. Talc and asbestos are found in the rocizs north of Ishpeming. Slate and graphite also are found in the Huro nian rocks. Garnet and tourmaline are found near Champion. Quart N 9 tourmaline, beryl, and tOpaz may be found in the pegmatite 2 reeks, such as those found near Rep sublic. Veins of green epidote, an inch or more in width, show in the granite cuts of Su5ar Loaf Mountain, a few miles north of Marquette.3 Serpentine, barite, chlorite, and staurolite are other :iner- als found in Marquette County much to the delight of collectors. The above minerals, althoug :h of little commercial mportance, do provide a source of entertainment for many local rock and mineral collectors, as well as for many vacationers. The bulletin "Rocks and i’inerals of 2~fichi~an"2+ provides an C: eXcellent 5uide for a collector tourin3 Michigan and Marquette County. M lIbid., p.50. 2Robert w. Kelley, and Harry J. Hardenberg, "Pebbles to Pendants," Michigan Conservation, (July-Au5ust,1953), pp.7-9. Geolor ical Survey Division, Rocks and Minerals of Mich- 15am (Pub. u2; 3rd. ed.; Lansin5: Dept. of Conservation; 1952), p.62. 4 Ibid. 12A pp. VIII. SOIL--A MAJOR RESOWRCE OF MARQUETTE CCUUTY U) oil Defined.--Soil may be defined as the collection of natural bodies occupying portions of the earth's surface that may support plan.s. The soil has lay rs, or horizons, wiose proper ies are the result of the integrated effect of Climate and living matter (eSpecially vegetation), actin5 upon parent material, as conditioned by relief, over periods of time. The Forgation of Soils in Michi:an.--Soils in Michi5an r —‘A_‘ w— were developed chiefly from glacial till parent material. They are between ton and fifteen thousand years old. The major local differences in Mic.igan soils are associated with variations in the texture (coarseness or lineness) of their parent materials and the drainage conditions under which the soils were formed. Characteristics of Marquette County Soil§.--The soils of Marquette County are characterized by a great diversity in texture, drainage conditions, chemical compositions, and pro- ductivity. As for soil texture, sands make up 24 per cent of the total area of the county; sandy loans and loams, 30 per - cent; reek doxinant areas, 24 per cent; and organic 50113 83 (F (swamps), 22 per cent.1 Stones and boulders are associated with most of the mineral soils except on the scnd plains and the organic soils. Stones and boulders are prevalent in th rolling and hilly soils in the western half of the county. In many sections, this condition makes the land unsuited for crop cultivation. Highly calcareous soils are located in the southeastern part of the county, but in other sections, most of the soils are acid. Soil Classification Because of the 5reat diversity of soils, a taxonomic system of soil classification has been devised, corresponding in some respects to the classification system used for plants or animals. A comparison of botanical and pedologic (soil) classification systems follows:2 Egtanical Classification Pedclcgic Classification Phy'lum. . . . spermat-Cphyta Order“. 0 o o o o o o o o 0 .201181 Order.....An5iospermae Suborder.........Forest Class.....Dicotyledoneae Great Soil Group.Gray-Br. Podzolic Family....Fa5aceae Family...........Miami Genus.....Quercus Series...........Hillsdale SpeCIGS...alba Class.........oo.3andy loam Variety...............o PhaseooooooooooooHilly Common Name--White Oak Common Name--Hillsdale sandy loam The Podzol Soil Region Marquette County lies within the Great 8011 Group known 11. F. Schneider, J. T. Stone, C. R. Humphrys, and R. Ulrich, Reconnaissance Soil Surve of Mar uette Count , (Unpublished, Michigan State University, 1939-1930}, p.161. 20. E. Miller, and L. M. Turk, Fundamentals of Soil Science, (Second edition; New York: John alley & Sons,‘lnc., 1951)! p079- \J) (- . 1 L4 as the Podzol Soil Re5ion of north-central and north-eastern United States (see Figure 3). Podsol soils are formed in humid areas under coniferous fores type ve5etation. The surface soil is dark. The surface of virgin soils are featured by a layer of forest litter and humus. Just below this layer, in the A2 horizon, is a very light 5ray, leached soil layer. An accumulation of iron and clay may be found in the B horizon. Soluble mineral materials, especially carbonates, have been leached from the upper soil horizons. Podzol soils differ from the Gray-Brow1 Podzolic Region of southern Michigan in that the Gray-Brown Podzolic has been formed primarily under a deciduous forest type ve5etation. The surface soil is dark with the A2 horizon a light yellowish- brown, rather than bleached like the A2 horizon of the Podzol Re5ion. The southern limit of white pine coincides closely with the boundary between the Gray-Brown Podzolic and the Podzol Regions. The western limit of beech in the Northern Peninsula (in Marquette County) is approximately the division between the non-limy parent materials to the west and the limy parent (D materials to th east (not Figure 8). (D U) 2 oil Mapping and the Soil Survey I ‘ 1 At the turn of the century there was an increasin5 awareness of the relationship between land and society. In an attempt to find the causes of some agricultural problems and in an effort to build a solid foundation for future research, the United States Department of Agriculture, in Figure 8 SOIL REGIONS OF MICHIGAN ILL - .‘e. -L ['13. g ‘ k “ t A . I l: '- I, C u l 1 , _' T.- .‘I d" ‘ M. n 5 1 \ r? c ' 0 c7 H L G 1“ 3-) L: ANAOA - /,.._...L L .' 1 ...I “~" 7’" '7‘ ’ I n "' ;“'-- L l L L .L LL , “3“, *r " ‘ ‘M-5 0 NL .... ' 3’" -l‘K‘ ' :R E :G | l\ L». ’LLL “V“. ...IL‘ I 3‘ V \, ~ A , I k... --~-w«‘~mrA-. 1‘ ....‘L \‘s ‘J ‘5 \L - \ \ “\er QC! \I/fi-dr :- " ‘(i L . V a; f... \o ' 'v v \I 1 (V v ~~- ."' - - , x ., .\--- L ..- Kn, t .‘ w . - " " A He ’ l?" 'A 3,) \ "\...\ 'd V I .‘f ‘ . f’ . ’ .- '. / ‘r1\ ‘4", . . I \ ‘y- '.' , 1 L‘ a ‘\ f‘. WESTERN I I I 3‘ 1..-: , \' .. ' “'1 1 ‘1, LIMIT OF F,7 1 , 1 . -1] A r -, - 1 r "" *, BEECH‘Ne 3.? .4 .i "“* . , ., y L 1" I, L‘ . L ?L r" 1 . . , . l .L r 4‘ / f./ I J 1 I / f. I r f‘ 4 / ( .0 :- “-.-. __ - __‘ / .--. 1...... 7* I L x ‘- PODZOL REGION -- -.:--4 - c. r *' ' ' r '1 '1 1 .4 , , l ‘ 14L ’J .../M s I I .... ' .1 i I" 'A :1 2’ I. ‘1‘ A». LL j,_“ _ - “ ‘1_ 1 11.! I r t ’1 -- 1 I L .- L- T I ' N. ’ 1 I 1 \ T” 1 1 _,_‘ '3..{ q . - _ ....f . i i ..--.1 A f L Lj-L r ‘.‘ LL : . , 1 I V. r- I: L 1 1 ‘\ t“ . . s’ . - . 1 1 V f 1 ...--. 1...)... J ’ -..” .. ””7””. GRAY BROWN a. 1.2:; . L‘ M‘T o-FL ' -L-_ ,-....._.- . .....---......+....----i_.._... ”in: L] WW5 ”NF. poozouc REGION AchAAAAA ll . -... 1 -...‘1..1... - - - .... ..-...i. L l P ‘ 1 "/i- \ w" .4.‘ l .' ‘ 1 1 - 1 2 , l 1 L .1 LL ‘/ L1 .,- L- A XL k‘ - - i. :L _ . C R f . .A a A: c i A s: A . o L. . o in.“ - ' ..."..O" i ‘\ .1 Soil regions of Michigan and approximate limit of native unite pine d tion. an b2333.§3“°§2__u_._ of Michigan, EA P “1‘93““ 1 F' S°m°1d°r’ and m“ . Cook. Special Bulletin h02. Soil Science Department, Michigan State i University, East Lansing, Michigan. 1956 Page 9. 86 E7 cooperation with the various state experiment stations, began a systematic investigation of our soil resources. This in- vestigation assumed the form of a national inventory and survey. The Soil Survey.--Soil surveying involves the class- ification and mapping of soils in the field. Soils are ex- amined at frequent intervals either by making borings with a soil auger or by studying road and railroad cuts. These inspections usually reveal a number of distinct layers or horizons, which taken as a unit are called the soil profile. The separate soil horizons and the underlying parent material are carefully studied and such things as texture, structure, consistency, porosity, color, amount of organic matter, and extent of root penetration are described. Tests are made to determine the acidity or alkalinity of the soil and the nature of the drainage of the soil profile is noted. The slopes are also classified and the natural vegetation is observed. Special attention is given to the factors which influence the adaptation of the soil for growing crops and trees. The Soil Series.--The soils are identified and grouped into soil series. The soils of a series are similar in their important characteristics such as color, structure, natural drainage, and in the arrangement of the horizons in the soil lupfile, largely because they are derived from similar parent nmterials and formed under similar climate, topography and \mgetation over the same amount of time. A soil series has usually been given the name of a town, tit 8“. river or other geographical or political feature near which it was first identified or mapped. Examples of soil series found in Marquette County are the Baraga, Champion, Gogebic, Hiawatha, Keweenaw, Iron River, Trenary, and the Marenisco soil series. (Over thirty soil series are included in the Marquette County Soil Associations Map, Figure 9, page 91. Soil Type.--To the soil series name is added the texture of the plow soil or the texture of the upper seven or eight (D inches. This gives the soil typ . There are over 300 soil types recognized in Michigan. The Survey ofLNichiqan Soil§.--As a result of the co- operative efforts during the last 55 years of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, the Michigan Department of Conservation, and the United States Department of Agriculture, general information on the kinds of soils in many parts of Michigan is now available. A land type or reconnaissance 3011 survey was conducted on Marquette County in 1939 and l9AO by I. F. Schneider, J. T. Stone, C. R. Humphreys, and R. Ulrich. The 162-page report of this survey, to date, is unpublished. This report, and the Natural Land Type Maps of Marquette County, may be reviewed at the office of the Soil Science Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. A brief summary of this survey, as well as the summary of the major land divisions and soil associations of Michigan which apply to Marquette County, are included in this report. r\ l ’ K 5.) A detailed soil survey of tie cleared land of Marquette (1) County is currently in progres of Marquette County 0') Major Soil issociations and Division Sgil_Association§.--In describing the soils of a large area, it is often necessary to combine a number of separate but related soil series that occur in definite associated patterns. This broader grouping is called a soil association. A soil association may be defined as a group of defined and named taxonomic soil units (such as soil series) occurring together in an individual and characteristic pattern over a land area. In classifying the soils of Michigan, J. O. Veatch listed 64 soil associations on his soil map.1 In a study of Michigan soils, I. F. Schneider and E. P. Whiteside combined the soil series of Michigan into 43 soil 2 The map of Major Soil Associations of Marquette associations. County, Figure 9, is based on the study made by Schneider and Whiteside. Seventeen of their #3 Michigan soil associations are represented in Marquette County. Land Divisions.--Fron the study made by Schneider and Whiteside, the #3 soil associations of Michigan were further grouped into 26 Land Divisions. These major land divisions fume been distinguished on the basis of the textural character ——__ a ——-—_ 1J. O. Veatch, Soils and Land of Michigan (East Lansing: inchigan State College Press, 19535. 2Z1 PP- 2E. P. Whiteside, I. F. Schneider, and R. L. Cook, Emile of Michigan (Special Bulletin 402; East Lansing: ifichigan State University, 1955), Map following Do 52. 90 KEY _T(_g_ MAE: MAJOR SOIL ASSOCIATIONS, MARQJBTTE COUNTY, MICHIGAN LAND AREA DIVISION NUMBER SOIL ASSOCIATIONS I. PODZOL REGION (Non-Limy Materials) l Munising, Keweenau, Skanee 3 Iron River Loam 5 Gogebic, Trenary, Hiawatha 7 Marenisco, Gogebic, Vilas 8 Keweenaw, Munieing, Hiawatha 9 Rubicon, Omega, Pence 10 Cnota, Waiska ll Baraga, Champion, Feats 12 Champion, Rock Knobs, Peat: 13 Iron River, Gagebic, Rock Knobs 15 Vilas, Munising, Rock Knobs II. PODZOL REGION (Limy Materials) J 22 Onaway, McBride, Guelph, Peat: K 23 Angelica, Richter, Feats F“ ii 26 Montcalm, Kalkaaka, Brunet, undulating P 29 Roscommon, Au Grea, Feats NH"! Q 30 Longrie, Summerville, St. Ignace III. PODZOL REGION (Hacks and Feats) A? t 1:. Z, L3 Organic Soils n 91 Figure 9 MAJOR SOIL ASSOCIATIONS MARQUETTE COUNTY MIOflGAN Some of gHeI 6 3 U 6 “AREA uni k/(n‘, COUNTY Source: 1956 map Major Michigan Soil Associations I.F. Schneider and E.P. Whiteeide Soil Science Department Michigan State University T‘42 N Key to map on the opposite page. iypgiw '- I... I ' MENOMINEE ' l COUNTY \. ... A of soils, bedrock, surface relief, drainage, and natural vegetation. Twelve of the 26 land divisions of Michigan are represented in Marquette County. On the following pages, the soils of Marquette County are described under the 12 major land divisions found in the county, and their agricultural relationships are discussed.1 Their location and distribution are shown on the soil map of Marquette County, Figure 9, page 91. Podzol Region (Non-Limy Mateljals) Land Division A.--This land division coincides with Soil Association number one on Figure 9. The principal soil series of this division are the Munising, Keweenaw, Skanee and Gay. This division includes the level to rolling soils developed from red, acid, sandy loans and loamy sands. The soils which are pinkish or pale reddish in color show the strong influence of Lake Superior sandstone. The soils are strongly acid to a depth of several feet. Sandstone bedrock actually outcrops or is close to the surface in many places. These soils occur on benches or plains from 50 to 500 feet above the level of Lake Superior. The value of the land for farming is lowered by the Slopes, stoniness and associated poorly-drained soils. Only a small percentage of the land is cleared. In this land div- ision, timothy, alsihe clover, oats, and potatoes are the U —1 1E. P. Whiteside, et a1" Soils of Michigan, op.cit., 52 pp. ‘AJ \J} principal types of farmin . (I Land Division F.--This land division includes Soil Association numbers three and five on Figure 9. The Iron River, and Gogebic are the dominant soil series in this div- ision found in Marquette County. This land division occupies the rolling to extremely hilly medium-textured uplands at elevations of 1,300 to 1,900 feet above sea level. Either gravelly or organic soils occupy a considerable acreage in the valleys and plains. The surface soils range from sandy loans to silt loans. The soils are acid in reaction. The agricultural use of the land is affected by the unfavorable slopes, stoniness and the shortness of the growing season. Hay and pasture, oats, and potatoes are the main crops. Land Division_g.~-This land division includes Soil Associations number seven and eight on Figure 9. The dominant soil series in this division are harenisco, Vilas and Gogebic in the uplands, and Stambaugh and Pence in the valleys. The topography varies from gently rolling to extremely rough uplands with associated level valleys with either silty or organic soils. This land division occurs at elevations of 1,400 to 1,800 feet above sea level. The soils in this group have been developed from acid, stony sand to sandy loam parent material. Only small areas near mining locations are utilized for farming purposes. The value of the land for crops and pasture is lowered by the variability of the soil textures, the steep- QA ./ ness of the slepes, the excessive amounts of stones and boulders and the shortness of the growing season. The best use for most of the land at the present time is for forestry and recreation. A Land Division u.--This land division coincides with Soil Asscciation Area nine on Figure 9. The principal soil series are Rubicon, Omega, and Fence. The soils of this land division are mainly level to hilly dry sands. These well-drained sands are strongly acid and are low in organic matter. rganic soils and lakes are common in this land division. The limiting factors for agricultural uses are low natural fertility, low moisture- holding capacity and wind erosion. The best land use is for forestry and recreation, although most of the forests are second growth. Land Division E.--This land division coincides with Soil Association Area number ten on the map. Onota and Waiska ar the principal soil series in this division. This land division includes gravelly, stony sandstone benches along Lake Superior. The soils are mainly sandy loams and loans. Forestry and recreation are the primary uses for the land. The land is not well-suited for agriculture because of the stoniness and the closeness of the bedrock to the surface. The farming areas are limited.to those locations which have a thicker soil covering over the bedrock. ‘D K i“: D h) on Areas number 11, 1 }‘~ sociat :t‘ (1) Land Livisi n .-~Soil , 13, and 15 contrise this land division. The major soil series are Baraga, Champion, Gogebic, Vilas, Iron River and Kunising. This land division includes the mountainous—like areas including the iron ranges, and the Huron Kountains. The areas occur at elevations of 1,222 to 2,200 feet above sea level. The soils, in general, are excessively stony and boulder- filled with rocx knobs, ledges and outcrops common. This land has very low agricultural value. A very limited amount of part-tire farming is found adjacent to the mining locations and the communities. Other than the mineral resources, the chief value of the land is for forestry and recreation. This is the most extensive land division of Marquette County. Podzol Fusion (Livy Haterialsi — w—r Land Division_g.--This land division coincides with 8011 Association Area 22. Onaway, Trenary, McBride, Guelph, Posen, Emmet, and Bark River are the dominant upland soil series. The associated organic soils are largely Carbondale and Carlisle. The mineral soils of t-is land division were developed from lim‘ sandy loam to loam till material. This division is largely well-drained, level to rolling till plains. The high line, relatively fertile soils with high moist- ure retaining capacity, are ideal for alfalfa. Dairying is the principal type of farming. Small grains, corn and potatoes are the other principal crops. Stones in some local- ities are sufficiently numerous to interfere with cultivation. Land Division K.--This land division includes Angelica and Richter as the dominant soil series in Soil Association 23, as indicated on the soils map. The soils of this division were developed under very poor natural drainage conditions from either stone-free silts and very fine sands, or from loamy till material. Organic soils are common in this division. The topography is nearly level with some low swells and narrow sandy ridges. The soils are cold and wet in the spring and the gr wing season is short. Consequently, the land is largely in second- 5rowth forest or is utilized for pasture. Land Division h.--Land Division M coincides with Soil Association 26 on the soils map. Kalkaska, Mancelona, Emmet, ibntcalm an Blue Lake are the dominant soil series in this land division. The soils are mainly sands, loamy sands and sandy loams occupying level to rolling locations. The original forest was largely hardwoods, mainly sugar maple. The soils are generally slightly to strongly acid. The sandy loam parent materials, however, are limy. The soils are not highly productive and require very careful soil management to obtain satisfactory crop yields. The soils in general are low in organic matter, are easily tilled, warm up rapidly in the spring, and are very responsive to fertilizer and manure. The sandy loam soils are excellent for potato production and produce fair yields of alfalfa, mixed hay and oats. Land Division P.--This land division coincides with Soil Association 29 on the soils map. The dominant soil series are Roscommon, Au Gres, Arenac, Spaulding, Rifle and Greenwood. This land division comprises mixed wet and dry sands with closely associated peats. The mineral soils have develop- ed from sandy parent material. The poorly drained sandy soils (Roscommon and Kinross) have a thin peaty surface with the water table at or near the surface. The imperfectly drained sands (Au Gres) have well-developed brown subsoils. The well- drained sands (Neare-Wallace-Rubicon) occur as ridges or plains. The combination of wetness and sandy textures results in a soil having little value for general farm crops. However, some part-time farming is carried on. Large tracts are in second growth forest. Land Division g;--This division coincides with Soil Association 30 on the soils map. Lonsrie, Summerville and St. Ignace are the dominant soil series in this land division. The soils are mainly sandy loams and loams. The land is used primarily for pasture or forests because of the stoniness and the closeness of the limestone bedrock to the surface. The agricultural value of the land is further reduced by the associated dry, gravelly ridges and intervening wet areas which are both mineral and organic in character. The farming areas are limited to those locations which have a thicker soil covering over the bedrock. Podzol Region LMucks and feats) Land Division Z.--Soil Association 43 on the soils map coincides with this land division. This organic soil division includes areas which are largely occupied by mucks or peats in sufficiently large bodies to be delineated on the soil association map. Smaller areas of organic soils are found, however, in most of the other broad land divisions. Two organic soils were mapped in the county. They are the Carbondale muck--Rifle peat complex, in which the timbered swamps were dominant, and the Greenwood peat complex, in which bog vegetation or a growth of sedges and marsh grasses were the dominant growth. The frost hazard limits the use of the area for truck crops, so timber products and cover for wildlife is the great- est use. Limited areas are used for pasture. Open marshes and leatherleaf bogs occupy some of the area. Summary of Reconnaissance Soil Survey_of Marquette County In the Reconnaissance Soil Suryey of Marquette County, Michigan conducted by I. F. Schneider, et al.1, soil complexes, or natural land types, were used as mapping units, as well as _‘ the individual soil types. The broader soil complexes are 1Schneider, op.cit., 162 pp. made up of a number of separate soil types, occurring in definite associated patterns. The report of this soil survey of Marquette County shows an arbitrary separation of the land into three classes.1 This classification is based primarily on relief, productivity, and tillage qualities of the land. A summary of this classification of land in Marquette County into three classes follows:2 Class l.--Soils of medium to high productivity, moisture good, not swampy, slopes not excessively steep. separate bodies large enough to warrant agricultural development, either not stony or other factors sufficiently favorable to warrant clearing of stones. The approximate size of this class or area in Marquette County is 60,000 acres. Regarding the present use and ownership, 60 to 65 per cent of this class is in farms. Farming is not highly pros- perous but is comparatively successful. It is estimated that 20 to 30 per cent is cleared land. The remainder is mainly second growth forest or recently cut-over land. A small percentage is in stump pasture, and less than five per cent is in virgin forest. The major soil types that make up this class include the Trenary, Munising, Chatham, Bohemian, Stambaugh, and Iron M fi‘. W lIbid., Table 4, p.25. _ 21bid., Table 4, p.25. 100 River soils. Class 2.--Class 2 includes soils of medium productivity. Land value is depreciated, however, because of stones, steep slopes, hilly relief, or poor drainage. Part of the land is level but plant growth is limited by low moisture supply. Approximately 210,000 acres of Marquette County are included in this class. Regarding the present use and ownership, it is estimated that less than two per cent of the land is cleared and placed under cultivation. The land is owned in large tracts and valued chiefly for hardwood timber. Cut-over land remains largely under private ownership, but is owned in part by the State. The soil types for this class are mainly Hiawatha, Longrie, Menominee, Strongs, Kalkaska, Iron River, Champion, Munising, Munuscong, Brimley, and Au Train soils. Some of the sandier and more steeply sloping land is excluded. Class 3.--The land value of Class 3 is lowest because of low productivity, rock knobs, excessive stoniness, rough topography, swamps, excessive dryness, occurrence in small bodies, or a combination of these factors. The approximate area of‘Class 3 land in Marquette County 18 910,000 acres, or nearly three-fourths of the county. As for present use and ownership, less than one per cent is in farms. Some valuable virgin forests still remain, MMLBO to 90 per cent is cut-over land which is still held in 101 part in large tracts b" mineral, land, and timber companies. It is estimated that 15 to 20 per cent is owned by the State, and a part is held by private hunting and fishing clubs. Soil types for this class are mainly Omega, Crystal Falls, Peshekee, Ishpeming, Saugatuck, Onota, Shelldrake, Vilas, Newton, Wallace, Ruse, and alluvial soils, peats and mucks. Conclusions Drawn from Classificaticn.--Although the classification is not based primarily on the present money value, a fairly close relationship exists between the three classes of land in their present assessed values. Such class- ifications as this are not precisely quantitative and are subject to change as economic conditions and agricultural practices change. Values based on standing timber, minerals, urban land, and resorts and club use are excluded in this land classification. The major conclusions drawn from this classification were:1 (1) A considerable acreage of wild land exists which is arable and locally first-class in productivity. (On a state-wide basis, the amount of first-class land would be smaller.) (2) A large acreage of second-class wild land exists which has little present agricultural value but which might be brought to a productive state if needed for agriculture. (3) A very large acreage of wild land exists which is third- bk fl tw— Ibid., p.26. —_ l class and wou for forestry, ’J 1C2 (I) IX. AGRICULTURE IN MARQUETTE COUNTY Types of Farming Areas In the bulletin, "Types of Farming in Michigan", the state was divided into 17 type-of-farming areas, as shown in Figure 10.1 These areas were largely based on the sources of farm income and the prevailing kinds of crops and livestock. The divisions between the areas were not so definite as the boundary lines would indicate. The transition from one area to the next was usually a gradual one. Marquette County lies mainly in Area 17 with a small portion in the southern part of the county extending into Area 16. The major farm products of Area 16 are dairy and potatoes. The type of farming for Area 17 includes dairy, potatoes, part- time farming, and forestry. Area 17 comprises most of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. There is considerable variation in soils, climate and markets within this large area. Typically, in Area 17, about 65 to 80 per cent of the tillable farm land is in hay and pasture; one to six per cent in potatoes; and 15 to 20 per cent in small grains, mostly oats and mixed oats and barley. —_ —— lElton R. Hill, and Russell G. Mawby, Types of Farming in Michigan (2nd Revision; Special Bulletin 200; East Lansing: udchigan State University, 1954), p.95. 10} 2. 3. PK” :AJI flu" I." Ah!!! .i,‘ \\~\I.Id \I“l\.¢!l Figure 10 TYPE-OF-FARMING AREAS IN MICHIGAN (Areas on a natural-line basis) MICHIGAN O V // ___z—+ ) CANADA MAHuLLTIL Cb'JNT'Y ;f——~.__. wt” ”VIA/s , ' W / ,Afl/ by? 0 I b {a U V i I \,\ v ’I, v I o __ l 7‘.“ Q /? I "r“ l / 0 ./ l4 rf'4U?7 I . 1' ’ l i, ' I 3 g I , t ,2. ~+~~~~i ...—t— c General Livestock and Corn lg ) , t i x: 2. Dairy, Livestock and/Corn , / 1 ii, _- L Lad: 3. Southwestern Fruit,, Dairy ,&\ ruck J 9 / ° h. Dairy, Poultry andl‘l‘ruck ’€ \ III3 ; \ Z Dairy and General farming 6. Dairy, Part-Time and '1‘ka 7. Dairy and Cash Crops i 8. Cash Crops and Dairy ‘ J R General Livestock & Part-Time Dairy, Potatoes and Truck Northwestern Fruit and Dairy Dairy, Part—Time ’and Potatoes 10. 11. 12. 13. Forestry, Part—Time and Cattle Ho. Cattle, Potatoes 'and Part-Time 15. Cattle, Hay and Part-Time 16. Dairy and Potatoes\ .CANADA - r 17. Dairy, Potatoes, Part-Time Forestry " ‘ ‘ / 0!! the basis of the amounts and kinds of crops and livestock produced. 104 \‘\/\/ ," (AX! Eli/I / The 83 counties in Michigan are here grouped into 17 type-ot-taming are“ Source: s g; Farming y; Mic an, E. B. H111 and R. G. Manby. guts; Bulletin . Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 1951. no . f Inn Locally, there are some good farming areas in the region and, where the soils are adapted, excel‘ent production results. Marquette County was the first in Michigan to produce a one- thousand bushel per acre yield of potatoes. Farming in the region is largely restricted to the land that has the better soils, without too many stones or excess- ively steep slopes, and where drainage and land clearing costs are not excessive. The locations of a few of the better agricultural communities in Area 17 in Marquette County are around Skandia and Champion. Also, the Watson locality in Area 16 is famous for its large yields of potatoes. Length of GrowinggSeason in Marquette County The three physical factors important in determining the best type-of-farming to follow in Michigan are climate, soils and topography. The major climatic factor affecting the selection of crop and livestock enterprises in Michigan is the length of the growing season. Michigan has a wide range in the length of growing seasons (see Figure 11.) Marquette County, also, has a wide range in the length of growing seasons. -s indicated in Figure 11, the length of the growing season in Marquette County extends from about 90 days to over 150 days. The average length of the growing season in Marquette County is 113 days. The longest growing season has been 158 days in Marquette County, and the shortest season has been 60 days. The years when the growing season extends over 130 days compares favorably with the average RFC~= n‘k FyILth FILE h‘ih nil l. siliin, illi- Figure 11 13mm 01“ ammo SEASON MICHlGAN Scale e 010 0 "(1.8 ‘4“: JVPER’OR .....z—«p- \ CANADA Misc - 17o \ (, .4011. than i7o\ i 7 The nnlber of days from average date or the last freezing temper;— ture (32 degrees or colder) in the spring to the average date of the first treesing temperature in the fall. ' , Source: 2122: of Pa ;g_fliegiggg, E.B.Hill and R.G. nanny. Special Bulletin 21% 'fifim s to University, East tanning, nigh- igen. 1951.. Page 12. n 106 107 length of the growing season in the southern part of the state. A great many variations in the length of the growing season are found in Marquette County. These are due to the Great Lakes, the variation in latitude and the variation in elevation. Of the three, the influence of Lake Superior and the variation of elevation are most pronounced and important. Lake Superior, after being warned by the summer sun, retains its heat during the autumn. As a result, the autumns are usually long and mild. After the water in the lake is finally cooled during the winter, it remains cold until late spring or early summer. Therefore, large bodies of water, like Lake Superior, have a decided effect on the dates at which late spring and early fall killing frosts are experienced. Lake Superior lengthens the crop growing season on its southern border in Marquette County. Frosts do not usually occur after May 15 along the lake, while they are common further inland until June 10. In the fall, frost seldom occurs on the land near Lake Superior before October 1st, but in the elevated interior regions, frost will occur between September 1 and 15. Agricultural Statistics on Marquette County Of the total pOpulation of Marquette County (approximately 48,000) only 2,500, or about 5.2 per cent, were listed from farms. For the year 1954, the following census statistics apply to agriculture in Marquette County: There were 387 farms in Marquette County comprising a total of 71,000 acres. This means there was only six per cent 108 f the land of the county in farms. The average size of the farm was 13h acres. (The average size of a farm in fiichigan in 1954 was 118 acres.) (The United States Census definition of a farm is "places of three or more acres with an annual value of agricultural products for home use or sale, exclusive of home-garden products, or $150 or more. Places of less than farms only if the annual sales of NJ.) three acres were counted a in agricultural products amounted to $150 or more. Of the 184 acres of farm land, 64 acres were considered cropland. For the state, 66 per cent of the total farm land is in cropland; for Marquette County only 35 per cent. (Crop- land includes cropland harvested, cropland used only for pasture, and cropland not harvested and not pastured. It is the workable land of the farm and from which most of the farm income is derived.)2 The percentage of the total cropland in the major crops grown in Marquette County are as follows: Hay--35£; Pasture-- 30%; Oats-~1ofi; and Potatoes-~43. About 76% of the farms have milk cows and 58% raise poultry. Part-time and residential farms make up 176 of the total 387 farms of the county. The census defines part-time farms as "farms with a value of sales of farm products of $250 to $1,199 provided the farm operator reported (a) 100 or more days of work off the farm in 1954. or (b) the non-farm income —‘ 1U. S. Department of Commerce, gureau of the Census, 1954 Census of Agriculture, Series AG 5&. 21bid. received by him and members of his family was greater than the value of farm products sold. The hunter of c1mmercial farms with the value of produce sold, listed by the 1954 Census of Agriculture, records Marquette County as having the following: 5 farms sold produce valued at $25,00C or more 8 farms sold produce valued at $10,000 - $24,999 38 farms sold produce valued at 8 5,000 - 3 9.999 156 farms sold produce valued at $ 250 - $ 4,999 Only two per cent of the farmers, or eight farmers, are farm tenants; 508 are full owners of their farm. In 1954, ' about 95% of the farms had electricity, and 49% had telephones. The average value of a farm in Marquette County in 1954 was $8,301. Majpr Sources of Farm Income in Marquette County The major sources of farm income in the county are from the sale of dairy products, cattle, poultry and potatoes. Potatoes are the best cash crop. Important hay and grain crops are alfalfa, barley, oats, and grass. Vegetables for local consumption are grown quite generally on the farms throughout the county. Important cash crops are head lettuce, rutabagus, green or wax beans, cabbage and beets. The value of farm products sold in Marquette County in 1954 amounted to $980,300. Crops amounted to 40.6% of this amount, or about $398,000. Livestock and dairy products sold 1 lIbid. 110 4 amounted to about 48.9t of this total. The types of farm products sold and the per cent of the total farm products sold in Marquette County in 1954 are shown in the table below: TABLE 7 VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD IN MARQUETTE COUNTY IN 1954 M h Per Cent of Total Types of Products Sold X3132 Farm Products_§o1d Dairy Products-- ------------ ---- $357,613 36.5% Field Crops ----- ---------------- 291,892 29.8 Forest Products--- ------------- - 102.704 10.5 Horticulture Specialties ----- --- 86,290 8.8 Livestock and Livestock Products 75,291 7.7 Poultry and Poultry Products---- 46,219 4.7 Vegetables-- ---------- - --------- 13,606 1.4 Fruits and Nut s------- ---------- 5 . 585 0 .7 The larger cities of the area provide an outlet for the sale of fluid milk from a number of farms. Other dairy pro- ducts are marketed through local milk condenseries, creameries, and cheese factories. Most of the potatoes are shipped to out-of-state or to southern Michigan markets. Aericultural Trends in Marquette County Among the big changes in the agriculture of this region in the last ten years has been the consolidation and enlarge- ment of farms. The result is fewer farms with more adequate The P r?“ Y -a----.L:1 S acreage. a family. W ‘3 11.). Increased mechanization makes a large unit ize fari must be big enough to support .0 «I " leasibie. The increase in acres per farm in Marquette County in 15 years has been 84 acres per farm. of the 1940 farm. part-time farms. However, According This is nearly double the size there are still many small and to the 1950 Census of Agriculture, 61% of the farms of Marquette County had farm sales of less than $1,200 in 1949. The Table below gives a comparison of agricultural developments in Marquette County as taken figures. it does indicate a definite trend. TABLE 8 AGRICULTURAL TRENDS IN MARQUETTE COUNTY from the Census Although the period covered is relatively short, 1940 1945 1950 1955 Number of farms 1011 860 584 397 Size of farms (acres) 101 115 135 154 Per cent land in farms 8.9 8.3 2.8 6'9 Land in farms (acres) 104,858 97,62} 79,57’ 71,323 Milk cows ;,613 3,450 2.253 9:193 Milk produced for 7 :95 980 9.305.942 Bale (pounds) ’ ' 19,049,476 10,114,840 Oats (acres) 1,236 2.072 2.204 2:411 Potatoes (acres) 1,529 2.311 1.466 968 . . 112 Aericu tural Stabilization n» nd Con ervation Committee U) The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) Committee administers Federal agricultural action programs 0:. oi the United States Department of Agriculture Stabiliza- tion of prices and production of agricultural commodities an also the consezvation of agricu tural resources are the objectives of the various programs. Conservation of soil and water resources is obtained by means of the Agricultural Conservation Program (AC?) and the 501 B nk Program. Cost-sharing under these pro.? rats was made to farmers for performing certain conservation practices. The several programs administered by ASC in Michigan are wholly voluntary with the exception of compliance with wheat allotments of over 15 acres. .he Federal Government shared with 13,8 91 lflich farmers in the cost of carrying out needed soil and water conservation practices on 18,543 farms. The total gross amount of assistance under the 1957 program amounted to $4,972,?” of which 34,687,530 were made in direct payments to farmers in Michigan in 1958 l 44 . \— County programs are developed and administered by county ASC committees in cooperation with local representatives of the Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, Extension Service, local soil conservation districts, farm organizations and other interested groups. _.__l 1Ajricultural Stabilization and Conservation, U. S. Empt. of A: riculture, ASC Michigan Annual Peport 19E 8 (La 9using) c 113 For 1953, of the 387 farms in Karquette County with 71,325 acres in farmland and 24,944 acres in cropland, the following nunber of farms participated in various programs of ASC on the stated number of acres, resulting in the allotted monetary assistance as shown in the following Table: TABLE 9 AGRICULTURAL AND CONSERVATION PRACTICES* IN MARQUETTE COUNTY 1957 1957 Agricultural Number of Units Used Amount of and Conservation Farms (Acres) Assistance Practices Participating to Farmers Vegetative Cover-- ------------ 7 89 3 590 Liming------------------------ 15 233 3,660 Contour and Field Stripcropping---------------- 3 34 105 Tree and Shrub Planting- ------ 13 48 953 Forest Improvement ------------ 8 30 616 Sod Waterways & Special Purpose Vegetation---- ------- 1 23 147 Structures & Erosion Control and Farm Ponds--- ------------ 4 5 1,692 Open Ditch & Tile Drains ----- - 2 16 219 Conservation Practices with Benefits of Limited Duration 20 371 1,393 *Source: Ibid., pp.9, 13, 17. The Soil Bank Program in Marguette County The Soil Bank Program was initiated late in 1956 to reduce production of surplus farm commodities and to prorote 114 conservation of the Nation’s land resources. The Conservation Reserve and the Acreage Reserve Programs make up the Soil Bank Program. The Acreage Reserve Program is a year-to-year program designed primarily to reduce the production of basic commodities which includes wheat and corn in Michigan. (Neither of these crops affected Marquette County, and no payments have been made in this county for this part of the Soil Bank Program.) However, the Conservation Reserve Program has affected Marquette County. The cumulative totals for the county from inception of program in 1956 to date shows the following:1 Number of contracts in effect ------- - ------- -------21 Acreage under contract at Diversion Rate ---------- 15h Acreage under contract at Non-Diversion Rate ------ 657 TOTAL annual payments (1958) ---------------- 33,54A.OO The Marquette County Soil Conservation District Farmers in Marquette County agreed and voted to organize a Soil Conservation District. Prompting the organizers were reforestation needs, problems in drainage, erosion, general land management, and a desire to use the land to its fullest capabilities. The Marquette County 8011 Conservation District was organized in October, 1935. Instrumental in organization plans were the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Michigan State University Extension Service, U.S. Agricultural Stabilization ‘— ————_ llbid, p.61. ... 115 and Conservation Committee, Farm Home Administration and the Michigan Department of Conservation. A landowner who desires to participate in soil conser- vation work may voluntarily become a member of the Soil Landowners or farmers who become Conservation District. 1959, there members are called cooperators. As of January, were 61 such cooperators in Marquette County who were signed up in the program. The Soil Conservation Service offers technical aid to these farmers interested in soil conservation. Soil conservation practices established by the Marquette County Soil Conservation District included contour farming, cover cropping, strip cropping, rotation grazing, tree plant- and conversion of cropland to ing, terracing, farm drainage, grass and croplands to woods. X. FORESTS--A MAJOR RESOURCE OF MARQUETTE COUNTY The Forest Area of Magquette County Marquette County has a total land area of 1,178,240 acres. Of this land area, four and one-half per cent is non-forest and ninety-five and one-half per cent is forest land.1 For an area to be considered "forest land area”, it must meet the following criteria: "All wooded areas, cut-over lands, and the intermingled and adjacent Open areas obviously suitable for timber production and not devoted to other uses. Minimum size area is two and one-half acres; minimum width strip is two chairs (A chain is 66 feet.). Excluded are marshes, areas of prairie grass, and wooded pasture less than ten per cent stocked with tree growth."2 The forest area of Marquette County consists of 57,100 acres of farm woods, and 1,068,000 acres of non-farm woods. The non-forest area consists of 28,100 acres in cropland and farms; 12,400 acres in other non-wooded farm land; and 12,700 acres in cities, villages, industrial sites, etc.3 Of the forest area, commercial forest land occupies 1,121,300 acres, and forest land not capable of producing 1Michigan Department of Conservation, Timber Resources 9: Marquette County, Michigan, 1948,p.1. 21b1d., p.A6. 3Ibid., p.1. 116 hi Ila-‘1'! 117 commercial wood products occupies 3,800 acres.1 Commercial Forest Land of Marquette County The timber stand of the commercial forest area of Marquette County is made up of the following size classes:2 Per Acres Cent Saw Timber ------------------ - ---------------- 209,000 19 Pole Timber----- ------------------------ ----- 217,000 19 Satisfactorily Stocked Seedlings and Saplings 320,000 29 Poorly Stocked and Denuded Areas ------ ----~-- 375,000 33 The county may be divided by horizontal lines into three zones or belts (see Figure 12), each differing considerably from the other in forest composition and condition of timber 1. stand.“ The northernmost division is mostly rough or rolling land. It has not been developed much for agriculture. (Cnly six-tenths of one per cent of the land is in farms.) It has comparatively few roads and lumbering has not progressed as far as in the rest of the county. Seventy-two per cent of the saw timber Stand is in this northern area. This northern division has relatively little pulpwood other than hemlock of sawlog size which has been classed as saw timber. This division is owned mostly by private individuals or companies. (Ninety- four per cent of the forest land in the northern district 1: privately owned.) —_ lIbid. 2Ibid., p.vi. 3Ibid., pp. 2-13. 118 Figure 12 THE 'IHREE MAJOR FOREST BELTS N,“ HURON T52 N MW °‘ N MARQUETTE COUNTY MICHIGAN BIG BAY a A 2 NORZI'HERN BELT G A c o u g DmcmoA CHAMP/0N ' Y NAROUETTE O ONEGAUNEE r/v ISHPEM/NG . ,9 p R E ”‘9‘" CENT BELT o N c o g GWINN T I v .R 30w DICKINSON COUNTY SOUTHERN BEE R23W o E L T A T42N C 9 l MENOMINEE ' | COUNTY l ZJI'I'I‘OI‘D <4ZCOO 119 The central belt is gently rolling and includes most of the industrial lands and a majority of urban development. It includes a few well-developed agricultural areas but is still primarily forest. (Five and seven-tenths per cent of the area is in farms.) The area has been largely stripped of mature timber and is covered with young second growth in which aspen predominates. The acreage of saw timber stands in this central area is about 53,100 acres or 25 per cent of the area. However, 105,800 acres of pole-timber stands are located in this area. About three-fourths of this division is owned by farmers or other private owners, and one-fourth is owned by the State. The southern belt, likewise, has been cut over but because of its general swampy character and lack of mineral deposits, the land has not been converted to other uses. It includes many swamp conifers in its second growth. About two per cent of the area is in farms, and three per cent in saw timber stands. The balsam and spruce species predominate as pole-timber stands in this area. About two-thirds of this belt is privately owned and one-third is owned by the State. The Forest Types of Marguette County The forests of Marquette County are composed of eleven forest types or forest cover types. The size of these types in acres and the stand size class for each forest type is given in Table 10.1 lIbid., p.3. TABLE Io AREAS OF FOREST TYPES AND STAND SIZE CLASSES, MARQUETTE COUNTY, NICHIGANnOCTOBER, 1946 SEEDLINGS ' C AND SAPLINGS LARGE SMALL SATIS- 2 COVER TYPE TOTAL SAV- SAV- POLE FACTOR.LY POORLY DENUDED TIMBER TIMBER TIMaER STOCKED 1 STOCKED l Thousand Acre: NORTHERN MAAowooos......... 341 105 43 41 132 12 8 Aspen...................... 306 0 20 65 103 54 44 WHITE PINE................. 19 4 15 O 0 O O REo PINE................... 1 o 1 0 0 0 0 JACK PINE.................. 70 r O 1 10 5 11 51 BLACK senocz............... 70 0 0 27 21 ' 25 6 CEDAR...................... 71 1 6 19 26 16 I TAMAnAcx................... a 0 0 I 5 2 O SPRUCE-FIR................. 94 0 6 31 16 37 , 4 BOTTOM-LAND MAAoIooos...... 15 0 6 6 0 0 OAII a o I 2 2 1 o GRASS Ann anusa............ 103 103 TOTAL-................ 1.121 110 99 217 320 158 217 ' SEEDLING Ano SAPLING AREAS AT LEAsT 40 PER CENT stocxso. 2 Foxesr AREA Less THAN 10 PER CENT srocxeo IITH COMMERCIAL TREE SPECIES. a... . L33; Hausa 9% SwAMP CONIF£R 14% SPRUCE-FIR ' 8% TYPES NORTHERN HARowooo TYPE 31% 120 TIMBER POORLY STOCKED a DEMuoED 33% POLE§TIMBER 19% SEEOLIMGS & SAPLINGSA SATISFACTORILY STOCKED 29% SIZE CLASSES 121 The Northern Hardwood type is by far the most extensive and the most :aluable type. This type covers 341,000 acres or almost one-third of the commercial forest area. It in- cludes 105,000 acres of large saw timber. It is composed mainly of sugar maple and yellow birch with beech coming in from the East, basswood coming in from the West, hemlock and red maple common on wet sites, and white pine scattered thinly throughout. Several other species occur in lesser amounts. The aspen type is the second most common type. It occupies 306,&00 acres within the county, or 27 per cent of the commercial forest land. It has 20,000 acres in saw tim- ber and 85,000 acres in pole timber. It is composed chiefly of trembling aspen and paper birch, but also includes large volumes of big-tooth aspen and balsam poplar (Balm-of-Gilead), and other species such as balsam fir and red maple. The pine types include the three native pines. The Jack pine type consists of 78,000 acres; the white pine type of 19,400 acres, and the red pine type of slightly less than 1,000 acres. The remaining six tree cover types include the following types: black spruce, cedar, tamarack, spruce-fir, bottom-land hardwoods, and oak. Timber Species in the Forest Cover Types Figure 15 gives the location in Marquette County of the major forest types. The timber species found in those types referred to in this figure might be summarized as follows: Northern_§ardwoods Saw Timber.--Upland forest of sugar maple, yellow birch, hemlock, elm, beech, basswood, white 122 R29W 820W 152M FIQURE I 3 ‘ , R271! TYPE MAP / RZGW TOIM // . .. t 7' “5- 0 F , f . a ,1, _/ ,, MARQUETTE COUNTY ' 0.. o //I I //, V ' , / , / "' :0 :0 $0 , 4, T 0. . ' OOIII , , 1 / MICHIGAN ‘ «50-, , . 1947 fill/f. S A" v v . I l . 1' _,1 7‘ . no» I f ‘ .‘ o" ”’" ' ° :4 / “1 v ’ v r, ‘3"; ‘ I v? .1 , / YY 146M I , , :1‘ I ‘ ' v D . I): V/ v :3; “not": «.4. 1' V i “/4. :v C “l f 'r +-~ v:' ’I/ .~ ISHP r T Y / " I, / . ,. I ' W 3A0 y , .‘ I V ’ / 7 Y Y , . - , YY / Y Y ' . A _ , / X , (Yrv .1, ,// g x v v _ / I .‘ I ' . I ‘3 r V v 1 . . V' / / r'O'o’o! fl & v " '. v , . g 3 v r_ us: , / , Y ‘ l 1 .. . __‘____ 1.- “. 7 \ / . ‘1‘ I A! T46N - qb T v r 'v I I. g" Y O TQGN ' T47N i % Y o 'T 0‘. 00 g , I"... 0‘... EB IIOIImIEAII HARDWOOOSff.f-;{.Q'} " sAIII mun £214 a NORTHERN HARD'OOOS 1"" YMG GROUT“ ASPEN-BRUSH [mm IIIxEO IIAAOIIOOOO ‘77: AND SOFTWOODS -.I .‘11 AGRICULTURAL LAND O. E] PINE fl IUNICIPAL AREAS FCC- 196? Source: Michigan Department of Conservation, Timber Resources of Marguette County, Michigan, 1248, TabTe 1. 123 pins found either in pure stands or in a mixture. The trees are mainly ten to thirty inches in diameter. The stands range from 2,000 to 12,000 board feet per acre. Northern Hardwoods Younngrowth.--This is an upland forest with the same species combination as the ld-growth hardwood except little hemlock or white pine is present. The trees are mainly ten inches or less in diameter. The stands average less than 2,000 board feet per acre. Mixed Haggwoods and Softwoods.--Spruce, balsam fir, white cedar, aspen and paper birch are the chief species fcuid on uplands in this type; and a mixture of elm, soft maple, yellow birch, balm-ostilead and black ash on the lowlands. The trees are mainly twelve inches or less in diameter. Aspen-Brush Type.--Aspen, paper birch, scrub oak or pin cherry; and deforested lands, covered with brush, ferns or grass, is found on the uplands and lowlands in this type. The trees are mainly eight inches and less in diameter. Pine Types.--Jack, white and red pines are found in these types. Young growth, ten inches or less in diameter, predominate. Conifer Swamps.--Black spruce, white cedar, tamarack and balsam fir are the chief species of timber trees in this forest cover type. The trees are mainly eight inches or less in diameter. 124 imber Volumesl The total saw-timber volume for Marquette County forests is estimated to be 2,097,700,000 board feet international one-quarter-inch rule. This is composed of 1,174,100,000 board feet of hardwood and 923,600,000 board feet of softwood species. The northern-hardwood type contains 1,558,900 board feet. Private owners control 1,963,000,000 board feet which is 94 per cent of the saw timber. Cordwood estimates include the volume of 3,092,600 cords of pole timber; 2,609,500 cords of tops and limbs of saw- timber trees; and 1,624,300 cords of cull trees. This makes a total volume of cordwood of 7,326,400 cords. The net growth of saw timber is roughly calculated to be 41,000,000 board feet. Forest Industries in Napguette County The forest industries in Marquette County in 1948 con- sisted of 60 sawmills, one wood-distillate plant, one floor- ing mill, and two wood-turning mills. There were also about 15 large and a number of small logging operators in the county.2 The wood-distillate plant in Marquette is operated by the Cliff-Dow Chemical Company for the production of charcoal, methanol, acetic acid, and related minor products. It uses 7‘ 1Timber Volume refers to the quantity of wood in trees or stands. It is measured by board feet, cords, or cubic feet. Source of these timber volumes: Ibid., Pp. 11—12. 21bid., p. 24. 125 about 80,000 cords of low-quality wood, much of which could not be sold elsewhere. Maple, yellow birch, and beech are the main raw materials, together with minor quantities of other high-density hardwoods. Large quantities of slabs and veneer cores are used. As old-growth hardwood stands decrease, the company expects to obtain its raw material increasingly from improvement cuttings in the second-growth stands. Approxi- mately 400 people are employed at this plant. The Robbins Flooring mill at Ishpeming is a very modern mill, built in 1946. This company is the largest individual manufacturer of hardwood maple flooring in the world.1 (They also have a plant in Reed City, Michigan.) The Ishpeming plant employs about 115 people twelve months of the year. Schneider Brothers Lumber Company operate a turning plant in connection with their sawmill at Marquette. They employ about fifty people. The type of production at this mill includes rough and finished lumber, rough bowling and duck pins, and custom orders for lumber materials. The Munising Wood Products Company makes handles, furniture, dimension stock, knobs and other turnings at its Marquette plant. The "Directory of Michigan Sawmills" for 1956 listed the following sawmills for Marquette County:2 lIbid., p.24. 2Forestry Division, Michigan Department of Conservation 91-380mm of Michigan Sawmills, April, 1956. 9 126 The Cliff-Dow Chemical Company uses cull hardwood. 15. The Robbins Flooring M111 at Ishpeming. 16. TABLE 11 SAWMILLS OF MARQUETTE COUNTY 1956 Mill Size __Class V. E. Ahonen Lbr. Co., Star Route 530, Marquette---A Ervin Coleman, National Mine--- ------- -------------E Cram & Crocher, Big Bay (two sawmills)-------------A Freis Brothers, Dukes----—---------—~ ------- -------C A. J. Firley Sawmill, Republic---------------------E Gannon Sawmill, L. F., Marquette-------------------A William Heikkinen, Turin, Route #1, Rock-----------E John Kanerva, Gwinn—-------------------------------E L. B. & Byron Ingalls, Skandia-------------~- ------ C Munising Wood Products, Marquette------------------B Edlore Patient, Arnold-----------------------------E Raish's Sawmill, Marquette ------- -------- ------ ----A Schneider Bros. Lbr. Co., Marquette----------------A Seth Wixtrom, Republic--------- ------------- - ------ E Mill Class Annual Production (M.b.m.)--thousand board feet: A--3,000 plus B--l,500 - 3,000 C-- 750 - 1,500 D-- 350 - 750 E-- 100 - 350 Those less than 100 M.b.m. annually were omitted. Forest Ownershipl Forest ownership in Marquette County is not as complex as in many counties of the Upper Peninsula, since the federal, county, and municipal governments hold title to a very small acreage. The Federal Government owns about 9,000 acres, mostly in the Upper Peninsula Experimental Forest at Dukes. The State of Michigan owns approximately 260,000 acres of commer- cial forest land. These are found mainly in the Michigamme lMich. Dept. of Cons., Timber Resources of Marguette 222233, op.cit., p. 10. State Forest and the Escanaba River State Forest (see Figure 14.) Three-fourths of the forest lands of this county are in private ownership, with 57,000 acres in farms and 795,000 acres in other private lands. Expressed on a percentage basis, ownership of commercial forest land in Marquette County would be as follows: Federal ownership ----------- 1% State ownership ------------- 23% Farm ownership --------- ----- 5; Other Private ownership----- 71% 0f the privately owned commercial forest land: twelve per cent consists of large saw timber; ten per cent small saw timber; 20 per cent pole timber; 28 per cent seedlings and saplings; and 30 per cent poorly stocked and denuded forest lands. Of the publicly owned commercial forest land: six per cent is in saw timber; 19 per cent in pole timber; 31 per cent in seedlings and saplings; and 44 per cent in poorly stocked and denuded areas. Report on Michigamme State Forest A report on the Michigamme State Forest was made by Clayton M. Schooley, District Forester for the Michigamme State Forest. A summary of this report follows:1 The acreage of the Michigamme State Forest includes 1Letter from Donald G. Zettle, Regional Forester, Depart- ment of Conservation, Marquette, Michigan, July 30, 1958. mm Figure 14 HURON STATE AND NATIONAL FORESTS owv mm ' T52N\‘#fl—PH&L1 MARQUETTE COUNTY MICHIGAN Scale of Mile 6 3 O 6 ss-=-2222=ss bmbwbm ”...... H,__H_,.__‘__,._.l_ ,_.. v lflp 1:. . . 000000000p000000000000000000 000000000b00000000000000 l w::::::::::: I '° mama" J [:1 10000 0 MARQUETTE O _-_ __ *— r1“..——-Jea~—- A T <:> <:)NEGAUNEE /5HPEMING <4ZCOO .—. ....»- ....... fl 000000000 000000000 000000000 0100000000004 ooooooooo 1 ooooooooo 0000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000b0000 ......... ...... 0000 . 000(00000000000000000000000000p000 ...... 00000000000000000000000000000p000 oooooo 00000000000000 ..... 1 A‘QIAHA AAA‘A-JAA 00 cccccccc 0000000001 p000000000000000000l p000000000000000000t p0000000000000000001 D0000000000000000001 000000000000000000! P0000000000000000001 I000000000000000000d 0000000 00000000010040‘0000000 HHfiV—v {R 30‘” DICKINSON COUNTY <42coo zom— EEE MICHIGAN STATE FOREST ESCANABA RIVER STATE FOREST T 4 2 N 1% HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST {_F______, -1 | MENOMINEE | l COUNTY 1 -30 116,838.52 acres, all of which lies within Marquette County. The chief uses Of the State Forest are a source of timber products from timber sales, for hunting, fishing and camping. Permits issued for various uses on this State Forest for the years 1955 through 1957 include: Permits Issued 10;? Tim er -------- --- 2 Use ...... ------- Free Timber ------ Mineral-- -------- Road-.--- ----- 00—-- Grazing .......... H U! Hammmm U) ON H O n OMHMMQ HWMU‘KJO Types Of timber cuttings on this State Forest include thinning Of jack pine and the seed tree method of cutting jack pine. Also some clear cutting of Jack pine in strips have been tried. A few marked hardwood sales have been made. The balance Of cuttings are diameter limit sales and clear cut- ting Of aspen. The annual income from timber sales from this State Forest for the years 1954 through 1957 was as follows: 1954 -- 8 2,355.99 1955 -- 8,858.34 Timber products out from the Michigamme State Forest for the years 1956 and 1957 were as follows: lUse permits are issued for certain privileges on state forests. They could include such special uses as areas for timber decking and loading sites, for stockpiling gravel, fgr dump ground purposes, for agriculture, or for the removal 0 hay. TABLE 12 PRODUCTS CUT FROM MICHIGAMME STATE FOREST 1956-1957 ‘1 1956 _: 195? Cords veins“ Eggds Value Jack Pine 1,297 $4,255 1.302 $4,092 Aspen 1,808 4,063 2,442 5,870 Balsam 476 1,822 1,173 4,681 Spruce 500 3,222 594 4,110 According to Schooley, "The trend in Marquette County is definitely toward more intensive forest management. More and more people, because Of the educational efforts Of State and Federal agencies, are coming to accept thinning, improvement cuts and selective logging. These same people were thinking only in terms of clear cutting just a very few years ago. With the acceptance Of modern forestry techniques for more - intensive management, the outlook for the timber resources of Marquette County is very encouraging. "If more Of the small timberland owners can be encouraged to follow the lead Of the larger operators, the timber business should continue to be a major factor in the economy Of Marquette County indefinitely. One Of our big problems seems to be the conversion Of the Old-time lumberjacks to these new cutting methods. "One indication of the trend toward more intensive man- agement is the rapid increase in the number Of applications for assistance in tree planting and woodlot management. These requests have grown from four or five per year five years ago, F’ \J4 {U to 40 or 50 per year now. There is every indication that this increase will continue."1 There is a great variety of forest types found within the Michigamme State Forest. The forest types found in this State Forest, with size of this type in acres and the per- centage of the total area, is given in the table below: TABLE 13 FOREST TYPES FOUND IN MICHIGAMME sm TE FORESTa Egrest Type Thousand Acres Percentage Aspen------- ----- - --------- ---- 27.9 23.9 White Berh ........... """"-""-" 1001 807 0ak-------------— ---------- ~--- 2.1 1.8 Northern Hardwood -------------- 6.9 5.9 Red Maple-'- ---- " ‘‘‘‘ - ““““““ 703 603 Hemlock ------- -- --------------- 1.9 1.6 Swamp Hardwood---------- ----- -- 0.1 0.1 Jack Pine------------ ---------- 12.9 11.0 Red Pine------ ------ - ---------- 1.0 0.8 White Pine------------- -------- 1.3 1.1 Spruce-Fir--- ------------- ~---- 5.7 4.9 Black Spruce------------ ------- 7.0 6.0 White Cedar-------------------- 1.4 1.2 Tamarack-------~--- ----- ------- 0.8 0.6 Total 86.4 75.9 Open--------------------------- 13.2 11.3 Upland Brush--- ---------------- 1.2 1.0 Lowland Brush---—----- --------- 10.2 8.8 Marsh--- ---------- -- --------- —- 0.4 0.3 Muskeg-------- -------- - -------- 2.5 2.1 lbn-meandered Water-----e------ 2-3 2.0 Roads and Rights-Of-Way -------- 0.7 0.6 Tetal 3005 2601 All Types 116.9 100.0 8‘Source: Adapted from Table l.-Distribution Of Area b Forest Types for Upper Peninsula State Forests; I952, Forestry Envision, Department Of Conservation, 195 . 11bid. 133 Report 0. Escanaba River State )1] orest A report on the Escanaba River State Forest was made by rne A. Metsa, District Forester for the Escanaba River State Forest. A summary Of this report follows:1 The total acreage of dedicated State Forest land in the Escanaba River State Forest is 163,681.72 acres. A small part of this is found in Alger County, but the majority is located 7: 4. A in Marquette County. State ores. lands get very much use by the public for such uses as hunting, fishing, camping, boating and canoeing. Three campgrounds are located in this State Forest and maintained by the Forestry Division. Fishing is available at all three sites. The State Forest campgrounds x-.. and their location are given in the table below: TABLE 14 STATE FOREST CAMPGROUNDS IN MARQUETTE COUNTY a Name Of Campground General Locatign Exact Location Anderson Lake 10 miles southwest of SE% Of SEé Gwinn on County Road 557 Section 12 on east side Of lake. T44N, R26w Escanaba River 9 miles west Of Rock *W% of NW% and one mile north Of Section 32 Escanaba River. T43N, R24w Little Lake 6 miles east Of Gwinn NW& of SE% on Highway M-35 on east Section 20 end of lake. T45N, R24W aForestry Division, Department of Conservation, Mich- lean State Forest Campg_ounds, 15 pp. bulletin. No date, p.11, A 1Letter from Don Zettle, op.cit. 134 Special use permits are issued in certain instances in the multiple uses of the Escanaba River State Forest. These are for such uses as dumping ground sites for communities ands. rifle range for the National Guard. Controlled grazing permits are also issued to farmers where the grazing does not damage normal tree growth and reproduction, and where it does not interfere with other uses of the state land involved. Free timber permits are issued to local people for domestic use-- for firewood Of cull trees, dead and down trees, or slash material left after a regular timber sale. Mineral permits for gravel are issued free to County and other public agencies. Cost mineral permits are issued to private individuals and contractors. The annual income for the years 1954 through 1957 from the Escanaba River State Forest was as follows: 1954 -- $55,295.97 1955 -- 45,256.53 1956 -- 39,499.63 1957 -- 26,043.35 The following is a summary Of income from timber sales for the years 1956 and 1957 for the three major species Of timber sold: TABLE 15 TIMBER PRODUCTS FROM ESCANABA RIVER STATE FOREST 1956-195 955 1957 Cords Value Cords Value Aspen 5,542 212,907 2,993 i 7.3;5 Spruce 795 5,196 508 3,53% Ehlsam 4,472 17,041 2,280 9, 4/ 135 The decline in total volumes sold is not due, according to Metsa, to the fact that there was a lesser amount Of stump- age available, but rather to the shortage of woodsworkers that occurred during the years of high employment in other indust- ries in the county. The present economic recession is going to have an effect on the amount Of stumpage sold this year (1958) since there will be a limited demand for pulpwood, lumber, and mining timbers. All pulpwood and cedar cuttings are made by stump diameter specifications. Hardwood and hemlock sales are made by marking Of all trees to be cut.1 The last time that cones were purchased for seed On this State Forest was in 1951 when $3,102.50 worth Of red pine cones were purchased. Prior to that, red pine, white pine, and spruce cones had been purchased. NO serious forest insect, or disease, has been encount- ered thus far in this State Forest. However, for the last few years the larch sawfly has increased enormously, and if this trend continues, we can eXpect some mortality of tamarack due to defoliation by this insect.2 As in the Michigamme State Forest, there is also a great variety Of forest types found within the Escanaba River State Forest. The forest types found in this State Forest, with the size Of this type in acres and the percentage of the total area, is given in the table which follows: 1Report by Arne A. Metsa, District Forester, in letter from Donald Zettle, op. cit. 21bid. .1 .fi 36 TAELE 16 FOREST TYPES FOUYD IN ESCANAEA STATE FOREST FOpest Type Thpusand Acres, _Percentage Aspen--~------------- -------- 30.4 18.5 White Birch---------- -------- 3.8 2.3 Northern Hardwood------------ 24.8 15.2 Red Maple --------- --------—-- 3.9 2.4 Hemlook-----~-----~---~------ 1.5 1.0 Swamp Hardwood --------------- 7.4 4.5 Jack Pine--- ------ —---------- 1.3 0.8 Red Pine--------------------- 0.5 0.3 White Pine --------- - ----- ~--- 0.6 0.4 Spruce-Fir-------- ----------- 22.4 13.7 Black Spruce----------- ------ 13.2 8.1 White Cedar------------------ 23.0 14.0 Tamarack--------------------- 3. 1.9 Total 136.0 83.1 Open ----- - ------------------- 11.9 7.2 Upland Brush--------- -------- 0.1 0.1 Lowland Brush ----- - ------- --- 11.0 6.7 Marsh-—---------------------- 0.6 0.4 Muskeg----------------------- 2.4 1.5 Non-meandered Water -------- -- 0.9 0.5 Roads and Rights-Of-Way ------ 0.8 0.5 Total 27.7 16.9 All Types 163.7 100.0 Source: Department Of Conservation, Distribution of Area bkugrest Typesfifpr Upper Peninsula State Forests, 1957. op.cit. Forest Diseases and Insect Enemies Most of the major insect enemies Of the forest are at a low population level in Marquette County with the exception Of the Larch Sawfly (Pristiphora erichsonii). The Larch Saw- fly is causing serious defoliation of tamarack in the west end of the county. The Red-headed Pine Sawfly (Neodirprion lecontei) is causing rather serious damage in small, localized areas. The Jack Pine Budworm (Choristoneura pinus) has been 137 reported in the central and western parts Of Marquette County. New areas Of light defoliation were reported in these areas.1 Hypoxylon canker is causing serious defect and mortal- ity in aspen stands on the poorer sites. The necteria canker also attacks aspen, but does not seem tO be as serious. The sweetfern rust is causing some defect in jack pine, but very little mortality. White pine blister rust seems tO be causing considerable defect in many of the white pine stands in the county.2 Forest Fires in Marqpette County In few states have forest fires been more numerous or more destructive than in Michigan. The county of Marquette was not spared and had its share of forest fires. A record of major forest fires which occurred in Michigan lists several from Marquette County.3 A few Of those listed include: (1) In October Of 1896, a fire started on the Dead River north Of Ishpeming and burned through to Lake Superior in the vicinity Of Big Bay "denuding the mountains' and covering an estimated 100 square miles of the virgin wilderness. As there was no organized protection and few tools available, all the few settlers could do was tO backfire around their clearings When the fire threatened in an attempt to save their property. __ 1Forestry Division, Dept. of Conservation, Michigan Egrest Pest Detection Prpgram, Report for 1957, 22pp., p,8. 2Report by C. Schooley in letter from D. Zettle. op.cit. 3Michigan Department Of Conservation, Forest Fires and \. Ebrest Fire Control in Michigan, 1957, 12pp., p.7-10. As a result, this fire burned unchecked for ten days until the fall rains put it out. Other major fires include: (2) May 28, 1926 - 9,520 acres burned in a major fire in Marquette County. (3) August 1, 1936 - 1,587 acres burned. (4) August 8, 1936 - 1,702 acres lost in the Echo Lake area 9 (5) October 6. 1943 - 1,200 acres burned in the county. The following table lists the total number of fires that occurred in Marquette County, and the acreage burned from 1931 through 1958:1 TABLE 17 TOTAL FIRES AND ACREAGE BURNED IN MARQUETTE COUNTY 1931-1958 Number Number Year of Fires Acreage Year of Fires Acreaee 1931 157 17,274 1947 87 348 1932 95 918 1948 81 1,324 1933 285 6,930 1949 4O 290 1934 144 3,991 1950 26 61 1935 58 386 1951 13 192 1936 92 5,418 1952 58 130 1937 109 3,532 1953 53 262 1938 49 360 1954 32 152 1939 58 532 1955 39 192 1940 36 90 1956 23 50 1941 88 676 1957 36 71 1942 37 5,999 1958 43 86 1943* 64 7,085 1944-45-46** -- *1943--includes aoout ten per cent of the total in this area. West half of Alger County, generally **1944-46--no records kept for the county as a unit. The average number of fires and acreage burned in l Ibpartment of Conservation, Marquette, Michigan. Compiled from files of Field Administration Division, 139 Marquette County for the ten-year period 1949-1958 was 36.3 fires, and 148.6 acres burned. Forest Fire Statistics for 1968.--The Field Administration Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation, Marquette, records the following forest fire statistics for the year 1958: TABLE 18 FOREST FIRE STATISTICS FOR 1958 Marquette Upper Total County_ Peninsula Michigan Number of Fires 43 302 1,251 Acres Burned 86 2,199 11,992 Cost of Damage $3,992 $10,501 $135,320 Of the 86 acres burned in Marquette County during 1958, 77 acres were forest land, and 9 acres were classed as non- forest land. The ownership of the 86 acres showed that 19 acres were State owned and 67 were privately owned. The table which follows gives the causes of the 43 fires which burned in Marquette County in 1958: TABLE 19 CAUSES OF 1958 FOREST FIRES IN MARQUETTE COUNTY Can 8 ires Res ons bi it ass Smokers 15 Fisherman 10 Campfire 7 Traveler 8 Debris Burning 5 Not man-caused 4 Lightning 4 Berry Picker 2 Railroad 3 Road Crew 1 Lumbering 2 Hunter 1 Incendiary 1 Woods Worker 1 Miscellaneous 6 Farmer 0 13 Section Crew 0 Other 16 I? 140 Forest Fire Controlzgn Mar;uette County.--Forest fire control in Marquette County, as well as throughout the State, has a most commendable record. The area under fire protection is large, distances are great, and terrain is often hazardous or impassable. Yet the number of fires and acreage burned has been greatly decreased. It is usually a few large fires annually that are responsible for the bulk of the area burned and the loss. It is important to get early control of the fire, as well as to have an equipped, well-trained fire fight- ing organization, such as is found in Marquette County. The Field Administration Division of the Michigan Depart- ment of Conservation operates seven fire towers in Marquette County. These seven fire towers are: the Turin (two and one- half miles west of McFarland), the Gwinn (three miles south- west of Gwinn),the Arnold (two miles north of Arnold), the Cliff (south of Negaunee and Ishpeming), the Hairpin (15 miles north of the mid-point between Negaunee and Marquette), the Panorama (in the northwest corner of the county), and the Skandia Fire Tower (south of Skandia). The Field Administration Division at Marquette also maintains four fire stations. They are located at Marquette, Gwinn, Big Bay, and at Champion. At these fire equipment stations was located (as of July, 1958) the following fire f1shting equipment:l * 1The information for the following table was obtained from the office of John Anguilm, Assistant Regional Supervisor, Field Administration Division, Marquette, as compiled by Howard 1bU1mont, Officer Manager, Field Adm. Div., Dept. Of Conser- vation, Marquette, Michigan, July, 1958. TABLE 1: MARQUETTE COUNTY'S FOREST F113 FIGRTIX} EQU1PVELT NICHIEAN DEPARTHEXT OF CCHZZRVATION--JULY, 1953 5 Trucks, Stake 5 Trailers, Utility 4 Trucks, Pickup 1 Trailer, House 4 Trucks, w/Semi Trailer 2 Trailers w/2000 ft. of Pipe 6 Trucks, Dump 3 Pumps, Trailer Mounted 2 Wagons, Station 6 Pumps, Portable 1 Car 4 Fire Trucks w/Tanks & Pumps 4 Tractors, w/Pump, Tanks, Plow 1 Crane, Truck Mounted 2 Tractors, w/Plows 2 Loaders, Tractor-type 2 Tractors, Wheel 31 Plows, Fire 5 Bulldozers l Well-Sinking Rig, Trailer- 2 Trailers, w/Tanks & inns mounted 6 Trailers, w/Tanks l Airplane, Cessna 23,130 feet of Fire Hose. ools, hand Pumps, Hand Tools, etc., to Forestry Problems and Recommendations m 1 he forestry problens of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan apply to Marquette County. These problems can best be summar- ized by authorities in the field of forestry working in this area. According to Harold Nygren, Supervisor for the Upper Michigan National Forests: "Forestry in the Upper Peninsula has many problems, but lack of markets is the main one. Only about half of the allowable cut l-b s bein harvested. If there 3') was far more demand for forest products in the Upper Peninsula, forest practices in this area would improve. Investment of capital in forest improvement is good business only when the demand for forest products Justifies the investment. The market for forest products in the Upper Peninsula has not reached this point yet. Mn ‘ oenerally speaking, the marketing proolem of Upper 142 Peninsula forests is too much wood of the wrong species. A U) an exams 8. the most plentiful product on the Upper Mi higen l ‘- aoional Forests is aspen pulpwood. The annual cut of t Z 31 FL ( D product is only about one third the amount that should be cut. Local mills use only a small amount of aspen and the Wisconsin mills have plenty of aspen close to home. Aspen pulp timber is in long sulpl-r throughout the Lake States."1 According to S. R. Gevorhiantz, Forester for the Lake States: "In the Lake States northern hardwoods are easily accessible and can oe handled by relatively small timber sales. What are needed most are better markets for inferior species and logs. Along with this need is the necessity for good Kl markets for the various products resulti from the use of inferior logs and species. "There is enough hardwood fiber, but a d finite short- (I; age of good quality logs. Before good quality wood can be grown, however, poor timber must be cut. The need for good quality logs will oecom e more pressing as time goes on. The present shortage of veneer and number one san035 will continue unless efforts are made to improve the quality of present-day stands. Th r.- s can be accomplished through good management extended over large areas. “ 1 Harold N"; ' ygren, Supervisor, Upper Michigan National Eorests, 'U. P. Forestry Lag Retarding Area' 3 Industry," The mining Journal August 12, 1959. 2 S R *e"°rk1an*2: "Manasins Hardwoods f: Quality iggrement ' Journal of Forestry, Vol. 54, No. 12, December, ’27 , .. pp. Q_J-3~:‘+C. Management Recommenuaol Arbogast, Forester in Charge, Upper Peninsula Forest Research Center, Marquette, makes the following recommendations for the northern hardwood type of fores "Inst we are recommending under ideal market conditions for the management of northern hardwoods is this: sunshine can reach the First, cut enough so that sufficient ~ to grow and develop into trees, but (3 ground to permit seed sprouts take over the young portion of the not enough to let leave the right number of the best young stands. Second, mature trees in all sizes to insure that new trees will become for each periodic cut and that the quality of the young larvest the mature trees is maintained or improved. And third, .fl trees."l Recommendations which followed the Forest Survey of 1948 by the Michigan Department in Marquette County 0 mpleted in of Conservation's Forestry Division may be summarized as follows:2 Industrial adjustments to use less northern hardwood 1 . and more aspen saw timber. 2. Change from clear cutting to selective cutting shen- ever feasible. 3. Increase use of small bolts and low-grade wood. 4. Begin improvement cuttings as soon as possible. — 5. Reduce fire loss. lCarl Arbogast, Jr., "Basic Principles of Forest Manage- ment in Northern Hardwood," Mimeographed 6-page copy of paper Presented at the fall meeting of Northern Hemlock and Hardwood .J‘V. Manufacturers Association, Land O'Lakes, Wis., Sept. 12, 1956 of Conservation, Timber Resources of Map. aMich. Dept p.vii. A o fiflette County, Michigan, op.cit., (1“ 4 1M. ? tl't’e5o hj } 4 gm 0 D c Organize action by local people. XI. NATER--A MAJOR RESOURCE OF KARQUETTE COUNTY One of Marquette County's most valuable resources is her abundant supply of fresh water. The many valuable ser- vices provided by fresh water are well known. Water is used for power and navigation. Besides for domestic and agricul- tural uses, water is necessary for industry, forests and other vegetation, wildlife, and many forms of recreation. Recrea- tion, such as swimming, boating, fishing and camping, requires that the waters be free from pollution. In winter, frozen waters give snow and ice for other forms of recreation, such as skating, skiing, and toboganning. The tourist and resort business depends, among other things, upon the highest possible quality and quantity of our natural waters. Lake Superior Marquette is most fortunate in being located on the shores of Lake Superior. Lake Superior, the largest body of fresh water in the world, and listed as one of the ten great- est lakes in the world,1 extends for over 60 miles as the northern boundary of Marquette County. This lake tempers the climate of the county, making it warmer in winter and cooler in summer. -_—_ —— lMerriam-Webster, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, (2nd. ed.), 1958, p.331. 145 .0 to F4 ‘ Pa The navioation on Lake Superior has been a great asset in the development of the county and of its resources. It is a supply of fresh water for domestic and lllQUS trial uses. Lake Superior makes possible commerc al fishi n3 and ma.y forms of recreation. The Inland La es off az*quette Cc uzity Of the 11,037 inland lakes in Michi 3an, 4,303 are located in the Korthern Peninsula of Michigan. Of this number, 835 are found in Marquette Cour ity. These are more inland lakes than are found in any other county in Michigan. Only seven counties have more than 300 lakes. They are as follows: Marquette, 835; Luce, 571; Iron, S28; Gogebic, 488; Oakland, A47; Schoolcraft, 3&0; and Barry, 527.1 Of the 835 inland lakes in Marquette County, only three are artificial lakes. Of ti ese three, one is over 200 acres in area. Of the 832 natural lakes, 15 are over 200 acres in area and four of these are between one and five thousand acres in area. The total area of the lakes in Marquette County is 30,168 acres, or 47.1 square miles. This reans that 2.5;s of the county is covered by lakes.2 The inland lakes of Marquette County are varied. They may be deep, cold-water lakes with rocky shores, or "pit" lakes with sandy shoals and pulpy peat bottoms. Many are 1C. J. D. Brown, Michig an Lakes and Streams, #24, 1"iathiggan Department of Conservation, p. 2. 20. J. D. Brown, op.cit., p.h. acid beg lakes. Some of these colored, soft-water bog lakes have floating bog mats that extend for a considerable distance on the lake. County Lake Maps of 94 Marquette County lakes are available from the Michigan Department of Conservation. The list follows- ufafll ‘ . u‘ n l “I. I'y' .» ITIIJ nan .. . tt , II . I "OI OI AlAnA-n I" at Anna uni- 25:31 NICIHMI DEPARTMENT OF WERVATIfl FISI DIV!!!" Marquette Table 21 COUNTY LAKE NAPS February 10. 1958 um: or LAKE T. chnnou stem”. :3: PRICE Airport 4531 2551'! 23 0.7 1.00 Anderson 44M 25, 6“ 7.12 50 0.50 Arfelin 49M 30?! 91 06.5 1.00 Baldwin Kiln 48?! 263'! 21 8.6 1.00 Bancroft 47.\‘ 27W 3.4.9.10 23.5 1.00 3333 4551 25'}; 99.30 77.0 1.00 Bass 453; 34,-35‘1 30.51.317.36 271 1.00 Bat 45.“! 33'}; 23 04.5 1.00 Bedspring 45M 302': 21 5-2 1-09 Bertrand 4531 2.519 95.27 23-5 0-25 Bobs 44M 2352‘! 18 7.x 1.00 Bobs, Big 44:: 25?: '13 20.4 1.00 Boston 48?. 281-? 32.55 50.5 1.00 Camp'S 45" scat: 3 2.2 1.00 Chain of Lakes, Li’est 45:: 201': 9.8 2.8 1.00 Chain of Lakes, iiiiiie 43:1 20:2 '28 5.4 1.00 Chain of Lakes. East 45%! 2’9"? 28 10"} 1'00 Clear 4824 292' 5 32-5 1.00 Cooper 47,413?! 21711 5.32 34.0 1.00 Cranberry 4531 3.3-3; .10 '3 .8 1 .00 Crooked 4531 26'!) 29.30 55.2 1.00 Engman’ s 45:; 24'}; 32 , 33 43 .0 l .00 Farmer 452-1 242': 10 .17 37 .0 0.50 Fence (Iron Co.) 45?: 30W 30 174 1.00 Fish 471! 20s 5,5,8 155 1.00 Flopper Pond 45,453: 237:; 4.33 6.8 1.00 Goat, Little '.'.’hite 40>: 3M 32.33 108 1.00 Goldmine 48M 28?; 96.35 :37. 1.00 Grant 4611 3331: 21.2.8 (37.0 1.00 Gunpowder 47M 27 ".r: 1 l 18 .9 1 .00 Harlow 4934 35,35” 19.134 75.0 1.00 Hasacib 49M 3th; 23 41.0 1.00 inkins Pond 40>: 27.1 as 5.4 l 1.00 mam!» Inn or cumcnono rout mama 111.8 HICflIOAI DEPARTNEIT 0F ¢0I8£RVATIOI ‘0- 931 U! Fu-m “’55 r13: DIVI8|0I Marquette - 2 COUNTY LAKE MAPS February 10, 1958 "ME OF LAKE T. L:CATIO~ SECTION ::8: PRICE Haywire 45M -300 11 3.7 1.00 Horseshoe 45M BOW 22 123 1.00 Independence SIN 270 Many 1.800 1.00 n Indian 49,405 500 5.32 05.0 1.00 Irene 4SN 250 23.34 11.1 1.00 Island 45H 50w 22,27 45.5 1.00 Island 45M 30w 14 19.2 1.00 Johnson QSN 25% 27 70.0 1.00 Kawbawsam 47w 23,240 18.13 155 1.00 Keewayiin (l Bariga Co.) 403 SSW 31 151 1.00 Lilly 45N 300 30 7.5 1.00 Little 450 04,251 Many 443 1.00 Les 4sn 20w 3.4.10 158 1.00 Lowmoor 47M 280 8 35.0 1.00 Mehl 45M 251 24.25 91.5 0.50 Michisamme 47,=ss 30,511 "any 4,360 1.09 1 slller 47w 271 13 2.0 1.00 Miller 450 250 55,35 32 0.50 Moccasin 45M 24% -7 6.3 1.00 Morbit 451 241 20.2« 54.5 1 1.09 ““d 450 sew 14,15 07.5 1.00 Mud 45M 300 22,23 21,4 1.09 Nash 49M 251 31 3.7 1.00 Noren 451 250 13,14 22 0.25 N°rth 47x 28W 1,2 8 10.7 1.00 Northwestern 45M 240 21 8,2 1.00 Orchard 47N 24w 23 0.5 1.00 Pelssier 47m 25s 9.10.16 88.5 1'00 Pelesier. Little 47M 253 4,9 9.0 1.00 Perch 45,450 30w 4,33 23.7 1.00 ::::er£ield 45M 26w F98'29 07.5 10:0 Powell 45M 291 28.29 20.0 1.00 46M 25w 8.9 20.5 _‘3;9133,,./’ H AWACIIID “I"? 0' l-IITIUCT'Olt POI FURTHER CHATIOI OI AVAILAIOLI" 0' ADV! IAPI. * Also in reduced scale. I, i x 11:}. ..... ne.. .,'_ 1 MICHIGAN DEPARTIIEIT 0F MERVATIN mm was FISI DIVISION Marquette _ 3 Table 2l-Cont1nued. COUNTY LAKE NAPS February 10, 1958 “m: or we T szATlou SECTION :61: PR'CE Quantz 4714 342'} R 3.7 1.00 Rice 4531 155}? 35 78.0 1.00 Rock 473] 27;? 5,8 25.5 1.03 Round 455! 28,394 1.6 11. 1.00 Sagola, North 45.0 283‘; 5 .2 1.00 Sagola, South 4531 1383'! 5 7.7 1.00 Section 14 45M 30‘ 14 ..8 1.00 Section 28 45M 30W 28 3.4 1.00 Shag, Big 45:1 2021' 25.25.35 104 1.00 Shag, Little 45M 235,136.11 30.31.25.355 10 1.00 Simone 45,4034 30‘}! 5.32 64.0 1.00 Sleeman Pond 46M 28?] 10 14.5 1.00 Sleighrunner 42m 35'}! 6 12.6 1.00 Sporley 45,45?! :24?! 5.31.32 75.5 1.00 Spring 45M 2511' 23,2 11.2 1.00 Spring 45.11 262'! 99 10.9 1.00 - Squaw 45N 3317 0.16.21 221 1.00 Stump 4531 252'; 2,11 33.5 1.00 SIflnay 45M 2531; 33 20.4 1.00 Teal 48;, 25927,, 31,35,30 505 1.00 Tilden 47N 277: 23 53.0 1.00 Trout, Big 4635 24‘}; 32 25.7 0.50 Tiin 4SN 29,33” 13,18,114 47.0 1.00 Tun 45,4 300 2,2,23,20,27 21.5 1.00 Uncle Tom's Pond 45.1 253'; 17 45 1°99 VOelker, East 4511 27:11 22 13.7 1.00 witbh ‘ISN 3.3;); 2,3,24,25,26 210 1.00 "m 43,49” 2024' 9.35 1‘34 1'09 ./ 3‘! An “"0 can "Wm .. ..I.” "'?.'3”SI'?'13.-_'°!_!9"‘"* I All- 149 4‘ I 150 The Rivers and Streams of Nagguette County Marquette County has the greatest mileage of streams of all counties in Michigan with a total of 1,906 miles. (Ontonagon, Gogebic and Sanilac are the only other counties in Michigan that have more than one thousand miles of streams. They have 1,282, 1,204, and 1,007 miles respectively.)1 A larger number of river drainages (14) are found in Marquette County than in any other county in Michigan. Chippewa, Ontonagon, and Alger each have ten or more. Several counties in Michigan fall entirely within the drain- age of one river system. The map on page 151 shows the river basins of Marquette County. The rivers of Marquette County empty into Lake Superior and into Lake Michigan. The rivers flowing north, northeast, and east into Lake Superior are short in length, while those which flow southward into Lake Michigan are longer and wider. The Big and Little Garlic Rivers arise in a highland at elevations from 1,300 to 1,700 feet and flow rapidly a dis- tance of ten to thirty miles to empty into Lake Superior. Big Creek, Cherry Creek, Cedar Creek, Chocolay River and Sand River have their sources at elevations from 800 to 1,100 feet and flow from ten to twenty miles to join Lake Superior. The Chocolay River basin, all of which lies within Marquette County, drains an area of apprOXImately 94,000 acres of land. Dams constructed on the Carp and Dead Rivers are the sources bf electricity for mining industries and municipalities of m 100 J. D. BrO‘Vn, opoCItO’ 131006-79 151 11 F1 e 1 1.1%“ “are . 111““ Eur 5 . Y ”(mom ,5 RIVER BASINS MOUNTAIN “ qu“ T 52 N 5.1%“: MARQUETTE COUNTY 1:09“:- Ml CH1 GAN B} Source: Mich. River Basins Geological Survey Div 5 on Department of Conservation B A I R lg Garlic River 2 7 Little Garlic River A arlow River C 0 U N T . Sand . Y 0115 rre River - .- A I L R G 0 E N R C O C U 0 ¥ u * '¥ .1931 v - Carp River Basin - Chocolay River Basin - Dead River Basin - Escanaba River Basin - Ford River Basin T 42 N - Henominee River Basin .0. 0 -. .- I MENOMINEE I .' Rapid Rim“ 3”“ l_ COUNTY .. Whitefish River Basin the county. Nearly all of the streams which flow into Lake Richifan have their headwaters in large swamp areas. The Escanaba, Ford,*Rapid, and Whitefish Rivers flowing into Lake Michigan are examples of this type. These streams drain lowlands in the central and southern parts of the county. The hichigamne River arises in Lake Michigamme and provides drainage for most of Kichigamme, Humboldt, and Republic Townships before converging with the Menominee River to empty into Lake Michigan. The Michigamme is a long, swift-flowing river with rapids in places where the river bed is narrowed by rock crops. Power dams are also located on the Escanaba and Mich- igamme Rivers. Ground Water Ground water is the water below the surface which supplies wells and springs. The original source of most ground water is precipitation which has seeped beneath the land surface and saturated all the porous formations below the water table. Where the pore spaces are freely inter- connected, circulation is active to and from the ground-water reservoirs. The principal source of ground-water in this county is the rain and snow that falls on the immediate area. The Ground-Water Availability Nap, which follows, was ‘Drepared by the Geological Survey Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation. It shows that about one-third of the county has its sources of ground-water from both Elacial drift and bedrock. Another approximately one-third 153 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVNHON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIVISION Khbt 0' “I! O I Figure 16 0 DOMHHON OF CANADA CHIPPE SCHOOLC RAF T ”007 H . CHANNEL SOURCES OF WATER Both glacial drift and bedrock . . . ""'gg;dgg 'ggbuga.'aggaaggag:p Only in glacial drift .. “.... .. I I I u I . ‘ 1 o \ . . . ,.-"...c, '." , A’Ki': OSCEOLX 'CL‘ARE'J'. ,:: Only in bedrock , .3 cosn'x 15. , ‘ i~EWAvoo : :-"- - '.2:'-;. iv ' '00 ' None in glacial drift, bedrock sources questionable - JDAYT‘ CLINTON In glacial drift bedrock sources questionable INGRAM ‘ ...: ' stain Not generally available -v-'~.:y; a or of poor quality ,'_-_::'-": ,‘.‘:;'-, ‘ . CANADA ' ' . .. .. ,/‘LAKE INDIANA OHIO 5,9,5 June 19 Map showing groundwater availability in Michigan I] , \ r- ... H \ \\\ Ill..- .IJiqi .... 153 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIVISION “A! st ‘(0 u a Figure 16 c7 DOMINION OF CANADA CHIPPE ‘ SCHOOLCRAFT \\\\\ ‘Vo ACKINAC - f7” 0 c mumtt g‘I’O “KM (MTV SOURCES OF WATER Both glacial drift and bedrock 15%.»in ‘4..' " wt R0 5540156 Stowowflociuwwijg . . . I -. - . ,. . f,. "_.".,.- H",‘. ,. ‘ . I I ' " F Only in glacial drift t .o ... I‘ a ‘ , I C 0.. a. - ...-.I ' ‘ ' ‘ 0". . .3“ . ', , . c . ' . ... AK‘E‘: DSCLDLA ,‘CLAQEHI' “I; .x', o . 1'3. . cosni ISA A . '_" .Nfiw‘yco .o -'. 1’... I ...-... I';‘. Only in bedrock None in g1acial drift, . 'If'-'u"d}.}t2” bedrock sources questionable '._°..2 CLINTON In glacial drift bedrock sources questionable mm L 51' CLM Not generally available or of poor quality .. 31:11“: ‘, ‘12“; ' . . CANADA . . a, ,. ,/‘LAK£ INDIANA ERIE J une 1958 Map showing groundwater availability in Michigan ill ITIIIIIT 'I v IIIJII 5* 1 54+ of the county has its source of ground-water only in glacial drift. This map also shows that a large portion of the county is in the area where ground water is not generally available or of poor qualit“. A small portion of the county has its only source of ground-water from the bedrock. From the study of the geology of Marquette County, it was shown that a large part of the county has bedrock at or near the surface. The porosity of the bedrocks vary consider- ably from one formation to another. Only those pores which are larger than a certain size release water by gravity to any opening or formation. In the Marquette district, the number and size of the pores differ from rock to rock. In general, very little water is transmitted through the pore structure of the rocks, because the pores are small or are not interconnected. Therefore, only a small amount of water is stored in this type of bedrock. However, other openings, such as solution channels and fractures in the bedrocks, give a formation some degree of permeability, so that it may trans- mit considerable water. Groundwater found in the glacial deposits is more abun- dant. The unconsolidated deposits, because of their relatively coarse, well-sorted character, have a higher degree of inter- connection of pore spaces and are better adapted than the bed- rocks to yield water to wells or drainage structures. An investigation of ground-water conditions near the iron mines in the Marquette iron range was begun in July, 1945, by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the 155 Geological Survey Division of the Michigan Department of Con- servation. The purpose of the invest gation of ground-water conditions near the iron mines was to acquire enough data to be able to predict with some degree of confidence, how success- ful a program of control of ground-water would be, and how much water must be considered. The investigation was sum- marized in 195A, and some of the conclusions were: "Water in the bedrock is usually in minor amounts except in certain cases where it is stored within the fractures and supercap- illary systems of the bedrock structure. The bedrock per- meability as determined from field tests and laboratory tests on cores is low, and except where subsidence has broken the structure and increased the permeability the amount of water entering a typical mine is only a few hundred gallons a minute."1 Problems of Management:g§_the Water Resources The problems of managing the water resources of Marquette County are similar to those of other areas of the United States. For the most part, the waters of the county are clean and uncontaminated. The major problem is to keep them that way. Pollution from sewerage, industrial wastes, and the development of the mineral resources have caused some limited damages to the waters in certain local areas. Bacterial con- tamination of sources of water supply, and the imparting to them of injurious or objectionable chemical constituents which * _ 1W. T. Stuart, et al., Ground Water Investigations of the Marquette Iron-Mining District, op.cit., p.90. ‘__ 156 ‘ would impair ooth public and industrial uses of the water must be prevented. Pollution must be constantly guarded against, for with an increasing population, sanitation and pollution will become greater public problems. Erosion of stream banks, causing a silt or soil pollution of streams and lakes, is also a problem of concern in some areas of Marquette County. Such erosion has destroyed feeding and spawning areas for fish, and has done damages in other ways. Another water problem is that of public access to waters~- to our lakes and streams. This problem is not prevalent in the county at present, although thousands of acres, including many lakes and streams, are already fenced off for private use. The problem of public access to waters is discussed under Public Fishing Sites on pages 164-167. XII. FISH-~A MAJOR RESOURCE OF MARQUETTE COUNTY Themfishery Resource With the abundance of fresh waters in and bordering Marquette County, the fishery resource in the area is very important. The Indians and early settlers made good use of this resource and fish was an important food in the lives of these people. Shortly after the decline of the fur industry, commercial fishing began. Although the commercial fishing industry has recently declined, Marquette County still has an ample quantity of fish for food, commercial fishing, and especially for recreation. Marquette County h 8 much to offer the sports fisherman. Nith 835 lakes, many of them trout lakes, with hundreds of miles of cold, clear streams, and with more than sixty miles of coastline along Lake Superior, Marquette County provides the fisherman a wide choice of waters in which to fish. Species of Fish Found in Marquette County A great many species of fish are found in the waters of Marquette County. The following table is a list of those species of fish reported to be found in Marquette County. It was compiled from species listed in fisheries surveys and other scientific reports of Marquette County. Also, those SDecies of fish that were known to occur in Marquette County, 157 SPECIES OF FISH FOUND II MARQUETTE COUNTY Family and Common Name Scientific Name PEIROMYZONTIDAE Northern Brook lamprey Sea Lamprey American brook lamprey ACIPENSERIDAE Lake sturgeon AMIIDAE Bowfin (Dogfish) COREGONIDAE Cisco (Lake Herring) Ives Lake cisco Cisco (Chubs) SALMONIDAE Brown trout Rainbow trout (Steelhead) Brook trout (Speckled) Lake trout (Mackinaw) Splake--hybrid OSXERIDAE American smelt UMBRIDAE Central mudminnow ESOCIDAE Grass or Mud pickerel Northern pike CATOSTOMIDAE Redhorse Hog sucker White sucker (Common) Longnose (Sturgeon) sucker CYPRINIDAE Carp Golden shiner Northern Creek chub Northern pearl dace Redside dace Finescale dace Northern redbelly daoe Ichthomyzon fossor Petrcmyzon marinus Lampetra lamottenii Aciperser fulvescens Amia calva Coregonus artedii Coregonus hubbsi Coregonus (several species) Salmo trutta Salmo gairdner Salvelinus fontinalis Salvelinus namaycush Osmerus mordax Umbra limi Esox americanus vermiculatus Esox lucius Moxostoma (several species) Hypentelium nigricans Catostomus commersoni Catostomus catostomus Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Semotilus atromaculatus Semotilus margarita nachtriebi Gila elongata Chrosomus neogaeus Chrosomus eos TABLE 22-Continue0. Family and Commongyame Lake chub Hornyhead chub Western blackn se dace Longnose dace Emerald shiner Common shiner Blackchin shiner Spottail shiner Northern mimic shiner Blacknose shiner Brassy minnow Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow Central stoneroller minnow ICTALURIEAE Black bullhead Brown bullhead CYPRINODCNTIDAE Western banded killifish Blackstripe minnow GADIDAE Burbot (Lawyer) PERCOPSIDAE Trout-perch A EERINIDAE Brook silverside CENTRARCHIDAE Small-mouth Large-mouth Warmouth Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Bluegill Northern rock bass White crappie Black crappie (Calico bass) bass bass PERCIDAE Yellow walleye Sauger Yellow perch Northern logperch Johnny darter Scientific Name Hybopsis plumbea Hybopsis biguttata Rhinichthys atratulus meleagris Rhinichthys cataractae Notropis atherinoides Kotropis cornutus Hotropis heterodon Notropis hudsonius Notropis volucellus volucellus Notropis heterolepis Hybognathus hankinsoni Pimephales notatus Pimephales promelas Campostoma anomalum pullum Ictaluras melas Ictalurus nebulosus Fundulus diaphanus menona Fundulus notatus Lota lota Percopsis omiscomaycus Labidesthes sicculus Micropterus dolomieui Micropterus salmoides salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis macrochirus Ambloplites rupestris rupestri Pomoxis annularis Pomoxis nigromaculatus Stizostedion vitreum Stizostedion canadense Perca flavescens Percina caprodes semifasciata Etheostoma nigrum 1e;- TAELE 22-Continued. Family and Common Rage Scientific Name Iowa darter Etheostoma exile Least darter Etheostoma microperca COTTIDAE Mottled sculpin (Muddler) Cottus bairdi Slimy sculpin (Common) Cottus cognatus GASTEROSTEIDAE Brook stickleback Eucalia inconstans Ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius in addition to those reported in scientific papers, were added to this list. The list was carefully checked by James Scully, Regional Fisheries Supervisor, Michigan Department of Conservation, Narquette. One of the best sources of information for the fish species found in Marquette County was Miscellaneous Publication Number 87, of the Nuseum of Zoology, University of Michigan. It was entitled Records of Fisheskin_the John N. Lowe Collect- ipn from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This report, pre- pared by William R. Taylor in 1954, listed all species of fish in Dr. Lowe's collection at the University nd the county or locality where the specimen was collected. Dr. Lowe was a biology professor at Northern Michigan College and had acted as a Biological Advisor to the Department of Conservation. He was an extensive collector of fish, turning the bulk of his collections and notes over to the University of iichigan. Trout Fishing_in Marquette County Practically all running waters in the county have from \ one to three species of trout. d J Tro L t Stream: in Far uette County.--A list of the better trout streams in Marquette County should include the Dead River, between its several reservoirs, which yields brook, brown and rainbow trout; the Chocolay River, east and south of Marquette; the Escanaba River at points south of Ishpeming and Negaunee and in the Gwinn area: the Peshekee River near Champion; the Michigamme near Republic; the Big West south of Gwinn; West Branch and Flatrock Creeks south of Ishpeniig; the Yellow Dog River at Big Bay; the East Branch of the Escanaba in the Sands area; and the Schweitzer Creek south of Palmer. In addition, there are countless smaller tributary creeks which, while brushy and hard to fish and not easily reached, will furnish good trout fishing. Brook Trout Lakes.--Most popular and productive of the brook trout lakes are Koccasin and Swanzy Lakes in the Gwinn area; Island, Just, Section lb, and Haywire Lakes in the Republic district; and Baldwin Kiln Lake and Hawkins and Mor- gan Ponds in the vicinity of Negaunee. From Ishpeming west to the county line are located Tilden Lake, which in addition to brook trout also contains lake trout and splake; and Rock, North, and L05 Lakes, all with excellent possibilities for the trout fisherman. "Coasters" (large brook trout found in Lake Superior) can hm taken at various places along the Lake Superior shore. 162 “VI gainbow Trout Lakes.--Among the better lakes given ova, (I! to rainbow trout are: Johnson Lake near Gwinn; Squaw, Witch, and Twin Lakes out of Republic; Brocky, Angeline, and Silver Lakes in the Ishpening area; and the Hoist and McClure Basins north of Negaunee and Ishpeming. Rainbows can be taken also along the Lake Superior shore north of Marquette. In addition to the above waters, there are scores of small, unnamed ponds, both natural and beaver-made, in out—of- the-way areas, which contain trout. Designated Trout4Lakes in Marquette County According to the 1959 Michigan Fish Law Digest (kiciigan Department of Conservation), Marquette County has 32 desig- nated trout lakes. Designated trout lakes contain one or more species of trout. Besides the brook, brown, or rainbow trout, often lake trout and splake, a hybrid created by crossing a lake trout with a brook trout, are found in these lakes. Nearly all designated lakes are accessible to the general public, and most of them permit approach through public fishing sites. Special regulations for fishing are given for the desig- nated trout lakes. For example, on most designated trout lakes it is unlawful to use any kind of live fish or to use or possess any live, dead or preserved minnows for bait. It is also unlawful to take more than five trout or ten pounds and one trout from these lakes.l * lissg Fish Law Digest, Department of Conservation. 153 Local provisicns also apply to two lakes in karquette County. It is unlawful to take brook trout from Swanzy Lake (Sec. 13, T45N, R25W) and Airport Lake (Sec. 23, TASN, R25W) except from May 15 to October 15, inclusive.1 The designated trout lakes listed for Marquette County in the 1959 Fish Law Digest are: Airport, Angeline, Arfelin, Baldwin Kiln, Brocky, Clear, Cliff, Club, Cranberry, Hasscib, lakes, Hawkins Pond, Haywire, Hemmings or FIOpper, Island, Just, Log, Long (Secs. 32, 33, and 5, T46, 47M, R27W), and Moccasin lakes, Morgan Pond, Nash, North, Penglase (Sec. 29, T46N, RBCW), Rock, Section Fourteen, Section Twenty-eight (Sec. 28, T45N, RBOt), and Swanzy lakes, Sepals Pond, Sporley, Tilden, Twin (Secs. 22, 23, 26, 27, T45N, RZOW), and Big Trout (Sec. 32, T46N, R24W) lakes and Blair Pond. ‘EQEQWaterLFighingin Marquette County While Marquette County is dominated by trout fishing, it also provides excellent sport with bass, northern pike, walleyes, and various panfishes. Lake Michigamme is noted for its walleyes, pike and bass. Pike also abound in Sauxhead Lake, north of Marquette; Goose Lake, southeast of Negaunee; Conway Lake near Big Bay; Cataract Reservoir, north of Gwinn; Michigamme Reservoir, at Republic; and Bush Lake, near Champion. Excellent walleye fishing can be had at Teal Lake near Negaunee; Lake Independence at Big Bay; Michigamme River and u‘ 1l " Fish Law Digest, Department of Conservation, p.9, Reservoir in the vicinity of Republic; and Little Lake, south of Gwinn. For the bass fisherman, best prospects in Marquette County are: Silver Lake, north of Ishpeming; the Shag Lakes, Grass Lake, Bass Lake and Little Lake, near Gwinn; Lake Mich- igamme; Perch and Fish Lakes, south of Champion; Martell's, Sunson, and Perch Lakes, in the Republic area; and Bass Lakes, south of Ishpeming. Some exceptional jumbo perch fishing can be had at Goose and Teal Lakes, Sauxhead Lake, Lakes Independence and Michi- gamme, and the Michigamme River above Republic. Yellow perch abound in nearly any lake not designated as a trout lake. Top crappie waters in this area are: the Michigamme River3£Fish Lake and Sunson Lake near Republic. For bluegills, Goldmine Lake near Ishpeming and Twin Lakes, west of Witch Lake, are good.1 Public Fishing,Sites in Marqggtte County The list of the 38 public fishing sites in Marquette County is found in Table 23. These sites consist of frontages on lakes and streams throughout Marquette County which have been acquired by the Michigan Department of Conservation. These frontages were acquired to provide public access to fishing waters. The majority of these were purchased with money from the game-protection fund which is derived from fishing and hunting licenses. The Conservation Department is 1Marquette County'Tourist Guide (Ishpeming: Globe Printing, 1959), Pp- 5:7. EJ} acquiring additional sites vearly as funds permit. The primary purpose of the program of public fishing sites is to provide access for fishermen to fishing waters. The Conservation Department has adopted a policy of keeping the developments at these sites to allow fishermen to drive on the site, place their boat in the water, and park their car and trailer while fishing. Sanitary facilities are provided and the sites are marked for identification. No picnic tables or stoves are provided. Camping is permitted on all public fishing sites in Marquette County. A written permit must be secured from an authorized representative of the Conservation Department to camp longer than twenty days. The following table indicates the general condition of each site as of January 1, 1959. Those marked "N.U." (not usable) are sites which have not been improved to date, and in their present condition, do not provide a suitable place for the entrance or parking of cars. Those marked "U" (usable) are sites which do provide for a limited use by the public al- though not improved since their acquisition by the state. Those improved are indicated as "Imp.". Improvements will be made on all acquired sites as fast as time and funds will permit. More detailed information concerning these sites may be secured from the Fisheries Supervisor or Conservation Officer in the area or from the Lansing office of the Michigan Depart- ment of Conservation. T 7'7"!“ H PJBHLU 1‘ F-J TABLE 23 SHING SITES OF MARQUE January 1. 1959 TTE COUNTY Water Big Sha Lake Wilson %Big Trout) Lake Swanzy Lake Johnson Lake and Flat Rock Creek Camp 11 Greek Camp 11 Greek N.Br. of W.Br. Escanaba River Pike Lake Bass Lake Squaw Lake Michigamme Lake Engman's Lake Bass Lake Cranberry Lake E.Br.Escanaba River Lilly Lake E.Br.Escanaba River M.Br.Escanaba River Island Lake Wolf Lake Chocolay River Michigamme River Deer Creek Sporley Lake Michigamme River Chocolay River Johnson Lake Chocolay River Cherry Creek Engman's Lake Section 14 Lake Twin and Mud Lakes Arfelin Lake Granite Lake Chocolay River Trout Falls Creek Witch Lake Little Shag Lake Source: 52-38 as given in this source.),pp.13-l4. 25 32 13 19,30 25 29,32 27,34 27,28,33 30 16 27 32 29 10 15 10 4 3 l4 2 24 3O 28 31 36 25 27 13 18 32 14 22 21 29 13 13 26 36 N N k N N N 3ZCZEZZHZ§ZEZZCZEZZHZ532322325 N N N N N N N N N N N 24 W 1 25 w 28 W 28 W 27 W 27 W 26 W 24 k 30 W 30 W 24 W 26 W 30 W 23 W 30 W 25 W 26 W 30 W 29 W 24 W 29 W 27 W 24 W 30 W 24 W 25 W 2 4 ‘v' 24 W 24 W 30 W 30 W 30 W 29 W 24 W 30 W 30 W 26 W Front- 4.0 300 5.5 1,500 43.0 4,500 10,000 (2,597.9) 1.500 1,500 9,000 31.9 1,000 1.0 250 16.0 750 28.0 700 4, 5 802 15.0 1,000 36.9 1,304 40.0 1,000 37.5 1,130 161.4 4,000 299.2 6,500 40.0 1,100 38.0 2,240 15.0 1,250 24.5 2,600 40.0 1,350 78.0 600 64.5 3,194 1.04 308 4.11 150 80.0 2,300 36.0 1,660 1.5 250 1.0 200 2.2 1,715 0.64 255 2.5 400 40.0 1,400 40.0 2,100 10.0 242 1.99 150 Condi- Sec. Town Range Acreage age ticn ~ 26 w Imp. imp. N.U. U. Imp. U. U. Imp. N.U. U0 N.U. U. Imp. IVOUO N.U. N.U. N.U. N.U. N.U. Michigan iepartment of Conservation, Public Fishing Sites, January 1, 1959. (The above listins folIows t 6 order and organization of Marquette County from 52-1 to 167 In addition to the waters available for fishing at the public fishing sites, there are many lakes and hundreds of miles of stream frontage on state-owned land. These public lands are dedicated for state forests, parks, and other public conservation uses. The waters fronting on the National Forests are also open to the public. The locations of state and federal lands, of lakes and streams, are indicated on individual county maps prepared by the Conservation Department (see maps on pagesEDT-209). Copies of reasonable numbers of these county maps will be furnished free of charge upon receipt of the request specify- ing the areas or counties desired. The State Highway Depart- ment also furnishes maps which would aid in determining the general location of state lands that may be open to fishing, or to help find lakes and streams. Fish Plantings in Marquette County in 1058 Each year the Fish Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation stocks, with various species of trout, certain designated trout lakes, and many other lakes and streams. Occasionally a lake in Jarquette County is stocked with warm- water species of fish. As an example of how intensive this program of fish planting is, the following pages of 1258 Fish Plantings, Marquette County (obtainable from the Department of Conservation), is included in this report. As will be noted, the fish are planted in many lakes and streams and that a total of 95,055 brook trout, 25,600 brown trout, and 77,500 rainbow “A .,—_—_‘_u~ _-€-...,..— _ Table 24 Brook Trout Airport Lake Alder Creek lake Arfelin n n Baldwin Kiln Bernhardt Crack Bass Lake Black River Caps Creek 09.1.11 Rigor " fl Chandler Bro ck Chocolay River a n Chocolay Rv. , W.Br. Chocolay Rv., E.Bru n n n Clear Lake Compeau Greek Cranberry Lake Dead River, Little Disgno Creek u n u Escanaba River u n n u Escanaba Rv. , E.Br. Escanaba Ev. , M.Br. n n H II it (I n n H Escanaba Ev. . N.Br.of “ Big W.Branch .L-scanaba Rv. , W.Br.of 1“ Big W.Bra.nch ~mesquite Rv. ,Big W.Br. F1Upper Pond Furnace Creek Garlic Ev. , Big garlic Rv., Little esssn Creek :reens Greek halfway Creek Hasscib Lake Hawkins Pond A HWWflJb Lake ISlmMIIflkB Juetlske Mitchigan Creek Moccasin Lake Partridge 01931: Sec. 11;, Lake TuSN-RZSW T5 IN-RZ7W Th9N-R3ow mugs-11301! Nahum 6w 111811—1227?! ThBN-RZBW 134517-112 6w T47N~R29W T45N~R29w Tum—R261! anLRZflJ 111811412611 Thur-.3261! T116N~R24w Th7N~RZl+W raw-.3241! 114511"sz Tum-112w Man-11291! man-122W Tum—11301: Than-227w TuaN '329W T1181} .930va I491: 329w T4311 125W THAN 112514 1111511. 112517 124511.351! T1+5 N—-R25W T46N~RZ7W T46N~R28W T117N~R28w TMN~RZ 6W TMN~R26W T43N—1225W 134511-11sz T%N~R29W 1501142261; mam-326w Tum-11281;! T46N«a26w T4511 -R25W raw-33 ow men—327w mien-13.3 0w muss-123 ow 134511-3301! T46N~a3ow rum .1qu Tum—327w Tasmmow 168 MRQUE'ITE COUNTY 1958 Fish Plantings Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Soc. Soc. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Soc. Soc. Sec. Sec. 560. Sec. Soc. Soc. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 890. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Soc. Sec. See. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 890. Sec. 33 26 21 21 21 6 1 29 34.35 5.6 2 17 29130!3393n 23,26 1.13.11» 25 14.22.23 2,12 23.25.26.36 5 4 1o 17 6 1 32 10,1# 4,9,16,21,22 21 u,1o,15,16,21 21 17,18 3.11.13 33.31» 18.28 28 4.5 b‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘b‘t‘t‘t‘klt‘t‘fiit‘g3t* m a: ozazaz t‘b‘t‘b‘t‘t‘t‘b*t‘b‘b‘b‘t‘b‘fiib‘t‘ b‘ b‘t‘t‘b‘t‘t't‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘fiit‘ 6 Table 24-Cont1nued. l 9 Marquette County Cont 'd. Brook Trout (Cont'd) flight M Sec. 28 Lake 14511-113011 Sec. 28 80%}: 2,000 Peshekee River T48N—R30W Sec. 1 71 350 " " TLP9N-R30W 880- 6.8.9.15.25.35 335 1.750 Pike Lake T45N—Rz6w Sec. 29 50 5,000 Springhole Lake TQSN—BBOW Sec. 5 10 1,000 Spruce River T47N-R30w Sec. 20 36 200 Squaw Lake 114511-3301! Sec. 16 300 1,000 Stickney Creek TL+9N~RZSW Sec. 32 9 50 n *1 T49N~R26w Sec. 24 18 100 Swanzy Lake T45N~1325w Sec. 13 224. 6,120 Sweitzer Creek Th6N-oliZ6W Soc. 10 80 400 Tilden Lake T47N-1127w Sec. 23 260 2,000 Trout Falls Creek TM6N~R3OW Sec. 111.23 72 400 Uncle Tom‘s Pond 24611—3251: Sec. 17 10 1.000 Warner Creek T461? ~RZ6W Sec. LP 58 300 " " 11171141261! Sec. 32 22 100 West Branch Creek ThéN ~R28W Sec. 26.27 54 300 Wilson Creek won-3.1261»: Sec. 29 102 500 Yellow Dog River T50N~RZ7W Soc. 3,9,10,16,17,18 561 2,850 " fl " T50N~kz8w sec. 13.19.20 108 600 " " " 15011-11291! Sec. 13 54 300 TOTALS 8,727.7# 95,055 £13m Troui Escanaba River Th3N~R25W Sec. 10.14 1C0# 500 " " T44-N-1-25w Sec. 4,9,16,21,22 200 1,000 Escanaba Rv.. M.Br. Tbéh-‘Llii'iw Sec. 17.18.27 312 1.400 " " " 124611-1281! sec. 3 480 2.100 " " " T4711 £12811 Sec. 6,7,28,33,34 660 3,000 " " " T47N—s-29w Sec. 1,2 60 300 HemP’Gon Lake T148N~~RZéW Sec. 13 500 2.500 Ferrestville Basin TQSN—RBSW Sec. 8 200 1,000 Micl‘lisazmm River T45N~P29w Sec. 30, 31 300 1,500 I: " T45N~R3ow Sec. 36 100 500 " T4611~s30w Sec. 1 40 200 " " 147N-a3cw Sec. 16.21.27.34.35 220 1,100 Peshekee River T48N-d30W Sec. 1.2 120 600 ,7 " " T49v~k3ow Sec. 6.8,9,1o,15,22,26 300 1,500 1 eshekee River. W.Br. T49N~330W Sec. 28 80 I400 Sundstrom Lake Thai-£26?! Sec. 8 “00 2.900 . " " T48N—Rz7w Sec. 10 300 1.500 pfrout Lake. Big T4611. -Rz4w Sec. 32 260 2.000 gulf Lake Th8N~RZ9W Sec. 2 110 500 Vellcw Dog River T50N~R27W Sec. 9.10.16.17.18 280 1.400 " " '1 T5CN~R28W Sec. 13.19.20 ....LQQ. .._.__6_0..Q 110m 5 .142# 25 .600 0) U1 H0 1:“ N (D m t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t-‘thkjfib U) Ht-‘t-‘t-‘L-‘t-‘t‘tzjt-I U1 fit‘bfit‘b‘t‘fit‘fit‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘fib‘t‘t‘ Table zit-Continued. Marquette County Cont'd. Rainbow Trout 170 Lake Angeline own-112711 Sec. 10 ”£611.. Lek. 54011-2301: Sec. 21 11 1| TWN—RBOW Sec. 21 Bernhardt Greek 514811412711 880- 6 fl " THBN-RZBW Sec. 1 Bass Lake 504511—3261? Sec. 29 Brocky Lake TQBN-BZBW Sec. 7 Chocolay River TuéN-RZW Sec. 1.12.13.11+ " " T47NeBZQW Sec. 24.25 Chocolay Rv.. E.Br. TusN-Rz4w Sec. 2.12 n n " T46N~324w Sec. 23.36 " " W.Br. Th6N~32hW Sec. 14.22.23 Clear Lake T48R~RZ9W Sec. 5 Dead River. Little Th81xlw'fi27w Sec. 17 Escanaba River TUIZN 321M Sec. 17 " " T143151 «211W Sec. 32 " " T43N~n25w Sec. 3.10.14 " " T44L«325w Sec. 4,9,16,21,22 " " Til/51% 225*»: Sec. 21 Escanaba Rm. E.Br. THEN-.1251? Sec. h.15.16.21 Escanaba Rm. M.Br. T4611 «132731 See. 8.17.18 " " “ TM6N~R28W Sec. ll.l3 " " " T49L~a28w Sec. 34 Forrestville Basin Th8N~R25W Sec. 8 Hampton Lake T118N~R26w Sec. 15 Hasscib Lake TU9N-RBOW Sec. 23 " " T49N~R30W Sec. 23 Johnson Lake T453ER25W Sec. 27 Michigamme River T4511 32911! Sec. 30.31 " " T45twkjow Sec. 36 Nash Lake T49natzov Sec. 30 Peshekee River T48N-«E’30W Sec. 1.2 " " 149m~s30w Sec. 6,8,9,10,15,22,26 Pike Lake T1150. 11261:! Sec. 29 Squaw Lake 5945114301! See. 16 Simdstrom Lake ThBN-irezdw Sec. 7.8.9 grout Lake. Big T461} «13.24?! See. 32 {Irwin Lake TIJ/SN-RBOW Sec. 23 '.'1tch Lake T45N—R30W Sec. 2% "ilf Lake TQ8N-RZ9W Sec. 2 Yellow Dog River T50N~RZ7W Sec. 3.9.10.16,17.18 " g 3 T50N~R28W Sec. 13.19.20 TSONrRZ9W Sec. 13 TOTALS 11.1215. m Brook Trout 66.830 28.225 Brown Trout 9,500 16,100 Rainbow Trout 511.700 22.800 131.030 67.125 Weight 4804' 90 240 30 30 90 240 460 . 140 120 240 240 130 40 214 198 500 604 56 300 200 120 40 600 1 , 760 90 240 528 252 272 27 96 552 90 240 2,040. 260 240 720 120 488 150 82 13.6491“? EEEAL 95.055 25.600 77 .500 198.155 353 77 .500 Ht‘t‘fl‘dt‘t‘t‘hdt" t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘ C11 0) U) Ht‘t‘t‘t‘t‘t‘fifit‘b‘fit‘t‘t‘t“ U} HHHHBEE‘HH I. Illlliwl 171 trout were planted in Marquette County in 1958. Pey§*Conducted in Marquette County (4 La} e Sur L r’i Lake Surveys.--Lake surveys reveal a detailed report of many physical and chemical characteristics of a lake. For example. in lake mapping, the area of the lake, its depth, all inlets, outlets, the drainage area, shoal types, and bottom soil types are all recorded. Such biological factors as the species of fish, aquatic fish foods. both plant and animal, fish parasites. and fish predators are recorded. Also the spawning conditions for the fish present are noted. As the temperature and chemical conditions influence the kind and abundance of plants and animals. these conditions must be checked. Surface and bottom temperatures of the water are recorded at various depths. Low water temperatures inhibit luxuriant growth of plants, bottom foods, and warm water fish. As for checking the chemistry of the water. the oxygen content of the water is made from water samples taken at various depths and at different seasons of the year. The car- bon dioxide content of the water is also taken. The water is also checked for acidity or alkalinity. Neutral or slightly alkaline waters are generally the most productive. Methyl orange alkalinity tests are made to determine the amounts of certain minerals and buffer salts in the water. Waters lacking these minerals are called soft and those with sufficient quantities are called hard. Water that is moder- ately hard is generally associated with good productivity. Ill,|. Ill.“ 1 172 (Hardness is an expression of the amount of dissolved mineral salts.) The softness of the water is one of the important factors limiting production. Since plants and animals require mineral salts for their life processes, the amount of salts influences the abundance of plants and animals. Calcium. potassium, magnesium, and sodium salts are necessary in the physiology of plants and animals. When present in sufficient quantities, these metallic salts foster good plant, plankton, and fish food production. In addition to being necessary to the life in the lake. some of these salts condition the acidity of the water by taking the acidifying agents into chemical union, thus temporarily removing their action from the water. Methyl orange alkalinity tests have shown the waters of many'karquette County lakes to be quite soft. Many of these soft water'lakes had a dissolved salt and mineral content of from 19 to 20 parts per million. Ordinarily from 100 to 200 parts per million are considered best for high productivity, other factors being favorable. This is more true when the management of warm-water fish is being considered than it is in the case of trout,for many of Michigan's outstanding trout- producing lakes have a methyl orange alkalinity test of around 20 parts per m1111on.l Lakes Surveyed in Marquette County.--As of January 1, 1959. approximately 119 lakes in Marquette County had been __ 1Paul Eschmeyer. A Fisheries Surve of S 0 1e ake, Mar uette Count 9 Report N0. 739. 1942. {Unpublished. Con- Servation Department files, Marquette). 15 pp. 173 surveyed by fisheries survey crews from the Institute of Fish- eries Research or by fisheries biologists from the Michigan Department of Conservation. The reports of these surveys may be studied at the Regional Conservation headquarters at Marquette. Lake maps are available for 94 of the lakes sur~ veyed in Marquette County. These are listed in Table 21. All of the reports of lakes surveyed in Marquette County have been reviewed for this report and a few comments on the results of these studies follow: Pollution was seldom a problem in the lakes surveyed in Marquette County. The lakes of Marquette County are varied in that they may be deep, cold water lakes with rocky shores; they may be "pit" lakes with sandy shoals having the bottom types quite often a pulpy peat; or they may be acid bog lakes. Results of the surveys conducted show a high percentage of the lakes were acid, soft-water lakes. Some of these colored, soft-water bog lakes had floating bog mats along their shores. Sometimes these mats extended a considerable distance on the lake. A false bottom was found in some lakes, as for example, in the Sagola Lakes.1 A lake with a false bottom is usually unproductive both of vegetation and bottom food organisms. Inability for plants to anchor is believed responsible for the low productivity and counterbalances the usually beneficial effects of shallowness. 1E. w. Roelofs, and F. E. Locke, W Sagola LakesI Marquette County, Report No. 770, l9 2, 7 pp. Unpublished. Conservation Department files, Marquette.) 174 Some of the deep, old-water la wzes showed thermal strat- ‘ (D ification. Of the lakes su Mey ed in th county, Squaw and Mitch Lakes could be considered as examples of the deep, cold- water lakes that show thermal stratification.l During the summer, these lakes have a warm surface layer (epilimnion), a deeper zone of rapid temperature change (the thermocline‘ and a cold zone below the thermocline (the h ypolimnion). The surface waters are warm and well aerated and suited for warm- water fish. Trout require well aerated water at a colder temperature (below 75 degrees Fahrenheit). Such conditions are found in the thermocline region of both these lakes. In the hypolimnion, the water is cold and there is not sufficient oxygen to maintain fish. * The survey showed that the physical qualities of these lakes do not favor hi5h productivity. Large and deep lakes are usually less productive than small or shallow ones. From the survey of Swanzy Lake it was found that from the standpoint of temperature and chemical conditions, this lake was suitable for both warm and cold water fish.2 Most lakes are considered either suited for warm-water species or for trout. r—_ 1E. w. Roelofs, A Fisheries Survey of Squaw (Long) and ”ditch Lakes, Marquette County, Report No. 779, 1942, 9 pp.“— (Unpublished. Conservation Department files, Marquette.) 2E. w. Roelofs, and F. s. Locke, A Fisher‘i es _ErVey of SwanZ‘ Lake, Mar uette Counti, Report 30- 716: 1942: Sipp- (Unpublished. Conservation Department files, Marquette.) 175 d A (I ALPQI'. LO}. Aquatic Ve { (h ,_J [c .--The table which follows lists scze ‘-..l of the aquatic vegetation found in lakes in Marquette County according to the lake surveys conducted. The list is alpha- betized by scientific names. TABLE 25 AQUATIC VEGETATION FOUND IN LAKES IN MARQUETTE COUNTY Scientific Name Anacharis canadensis Brasenia shreberi Carex lentiocarpa " lenticularis substricta Chamaedaphne culyculata Chara sp. Dulichium arundinaceum Eleocharis olivaccea " palustris var. major Briocaulon septangulare Equisetum fluviatile " limosum Glyceria borealis Hypericum ellipticun " punctatum virginicum Isoetes braunii Juncus balticus Lemna sp. Leptodiotum riparium Lycopus americana Lysimachia terrestris Minulus rigens Myrica sp. Myriophyllum spicatum Najas flexilis Nuphar varuegatum Nymphaea odorata Nymphar advena (Nuphar) Osmunda regalis Phragmites communis Polygonum natans Potamoeeton amphifolius “ epihydrus foliosus gramineus natans H N H N II Common Name Waterweed (Elodca) Watershield Sedge N Leatherleaf Stonewort and Muskgrass Sp ke rus H H H H Pipewort Hersetail I! Manna Grass Stfl John 3 Wort l H H M Quillwort Rush Duckweed Mo 3 s Water horehound Loosestrife Eonkey flower Sweet Gale Water milfoil Bushy Pondweed Yellow water lily White water lily Yellow water lily Royal Fern Reed Grass Smart Weed Pondweed, Large-leaved " , Celery-leaved Leafy Variable Floating-leaved n H H i... 176 TABLE 25-Continued. Scientific Name Potamogeton panormitanus “ pectinatus praelongu richardsonii zosteriformis Ranunculus reptans Sagittaria latifolia " 1. var. gracilis Scirpus acutus " cyperinus Slum suana Sparganium subulata Typha latifoliata Utriculatia intermedia " vulgaris Common Name Pondweed Pondweed, Sago Pondweed, W.ite-stermed Pondweed, Clasping-leaved Pcndweed, Flat-stemmed Buttercup Duck Potato Arrowhead Tall Bulaush Water Parsnip Burreed Cattail Bladderwort Certain plants grow best in hard alkaline water while these conditions prevent the growth of others. However, most plants will live and reproduce under a wide range of temper- atures and chemical conditions. A scarcity of plant species is generally associated with an acid bog lake. There may be an abundance of plants of one or two species so that the total crop is fairly large, but there is less diversity than in lakes more nearly neutral (pH 7). As many lakes in Marquette County are acid lakes, the number of species of aquatic vegetation was limited on these lakes. However, others almost neutral or alkaline had a greater number of species of aquatic plants. Fish-Food Organisms.--It is almost invariably true that the number of fish-food organisms is directly correlated with the abundance of vegetation. Those lakes lacking vegetation 177 productive of food as those containing it. The are never as abundance of species and numbers varies with the chemistry and - tics of the lake. of Marquette County, because of the 954‘ A physical charactc.is Some of the lakes characteristics of the lakes, lacked physical and biological only a small quantity of aquatic vegetation. Therefore, In animal life which could serve as fish food is produced. other lakes, where conditions were conducive to such organisms, fish food was abundant. Examples from lake survey reports of Marquette County lakes include the following notations: (1) On Sagola Lakes, the chemical conditions favored Bottom organisms were varied but not high productivity. In these lakes such foods as the following were numerous. larvae (Chironomidae), phantom midge (Corethra), found: midge free-swimming flatworms, aquatic earthworms, snails, scuds, water mites, mayfly nymphs, and oaddisfly larvae.l "The shoal areas (2) From the report on Swanzy Lake: Damselfly, dragonfly, were quite productive of bottom foods. and caddisfly and midge larvae made up the and mayfly nymphs, bulk of the bottom food supply."2 ”The microscopic (3) From the Lake Michigamme report: such as water-fleas, and semi-micrOSCOpic animals and plants, The predominating rotifers and algae, were fairly abundant. A‘ 13. w. Roelofs, and F; Eh Locke, A Fisheries Survey of Marquette County, op.cit., p... Saaola Lakes, -_ E. Locke, A Fisheries Survey of 9:. w. Roelofs, and F. T "‘rouette County, op.cit., p.4. Swan}: Lake , -L-s"::l 4" 178 fish-food orga nisma found on the shoals were mayfly numphs and caddisfly larvae, while on the bottom in the deeper areas midge larvae were most abundant. Fresh water shrimp (Ampipods) were fairly common on the bottom between the 30 and 60 foot contours."l (4) From Indian, Little White Goat, and Keewaydin Lakes the survey report states: "Bottom samples produced little in the way of food. Corethra, Phantom midge larvae, and Chironomid (midge) larvae were the only two forms found."2 Plankton samples indicated average production at the time of the survey on these lakes. Fish Parasites.--According to fisheries surveys conducted on the inland lakes in Marquette County, the following fish parasites have been recorded: Black spot Neascus Yellow grub Clinostomum Bass tapeworm Proteocephalus amblopletes Gill lice Copepoda Tapeworms in suckers and perch The Black spot, Yellow grub, nor the bass tapeworm are known to affect trout, and none will affect man. From the survey report of Twin Lake: "Brook trout was 10. J. D. Brown, fisheries Surve of Lake Mi hi amme gugtte and Baraga Counties, Report No. p. Dahlia ed. Conservation Department files, Marquette. g P.10. 213.:109101‘8, A fisheries Survey of Indian and Little iflute Goat Lakes in Marquette County, and Keewa din Lake in %§;%%ette and Baraga Counties, Report No. 725, 1922,11 pp. 179 infected with gill lice. This certain species of gill para- site (Copepoda) is specific to the brook trout."l According to the survey report on Lake Michigamme: "Some of the small-mouth base were infected with the bass tapeworm (Proteocephalus). The presence of this parasite did not seem to seriously affect natural propagation since many small bass were observed. This parasite cannot attack man. Sometimes the bass tapeworm is very damaging to the reproductive organs of the fish and may produce sterility. There is no known practical method for the control of this parasite."2 Regarding the parasite Black spot, from the same report: "Nearly all of the game species present had the parasite known as Black spot. These in small numbers certainly have little if any effect on the fish, and under no circumstance are they able to attack man."3 In Lake Superior, the worst parasite which has affected fish populations within recent times has been the sea lamprey. It has invaded Lake Superior and destroyed a great percentage of the trout an whitefish populations in the lake. The lamprey problem is discussed later under a separate heading. Predators of Fish.--Fish predators are not abundant enough in Marquette County to necessitate any methods of 1J. W. Moffett, and F. E. Locke, A Fisheries Surve of Twin LakeI Marquette County, Report No. 553, 195i. 12 pp. (p.10). 20. J. D. Brown, Fisheries Survey‘of Lake Mighigamme, Op.C1t., p.16. f 31bid., p.15, ioO control according to most survey reports. Some of the fish predators found in this county, as reported in the survey records, include such bird predators as the kingfisher, loons, gulls, great blue heron, osprey, eagles, grebes, and mergan- sers. Mink and otter, as well as snapping turtles and painted turtles, are known to prey on fish. None of these predators are considered harmful enough to fish pOpulations to be con- cerned with, except perhaps at the Fish Hatchery. Where stunted populations of warm-water fish are found, additional predators might be welcomed. The native predaceous fish species, such as bass and pike, help control overpopulations of such fish as perch and members of the sunfish family, and also make for good sport fishing. Lake and Stream Improvement in Marquette County Lake Poisoning.--A number of lakes have been treated in Marquette County with rotenone to remove the fish population so that they might then be planted with trout. Some of the lakes so treated include Perch Lake, Island Lake, O'Neil Lake, and Sporley Lake. The District Fisheries Supervisor has the responsibility of managing the lake after treatment. Toxaphene has been used on some lakes, including Sporley Lake, which was treated in August, 1955. Toxaphene has the advantage of en- suring a better kill on the deeper lakes. However, toxaphene acts more slowly and the time before restocking can take place is much greater. Brush Shelgers.--Brush shelters were installed in Little 181 a Lake and Lake Michigamme. Their purpose was to concentrate the fish and provide cover for small fish. No evaluation was made on them.1 gonstruction of Bems.--A small dam was constructed on Morgan's Pond (between Marquette and Negaunee). The purpose of this dam was to raise the water level four feet and increase the surface acres. It was then planted with trout. Stream Improvement.--Stream improvement structures were installed in the Chocolay River before the Dingell-Johnson program became effective. Therefore, it was not carried on as a watershed project, but merely as channel improvement. There were 157 structures built between the Junction of the East and West Branch of the Chocolay, which makes up the Main Chocolay, and the bridge on U.S. 41. These structures were designed to protect banks from erosion, dig pools, provide cover, and where the river was wide and shallow, to concentrate the water in one channel. The river is subject to a terrific runoff in the spring as well as from a moderate rain. Therefore, there are serious limitations on the type of structures to be in- stalled. Further, the bottom type varies from rock to very coarse gravel. This also limits the installation of structures. There were some 700 pine tree seedlings, as well as some willow cuttings, planted on the stream banks of the Chocolay River. No scientific evaluation was made of the project but a 1Letter from Arthur Feldhauser, Lake and Stream Improve- ment Technician, Marquette, August, 1958. Fa CO H) visual inspection periodically of the physical conditions of the banks and pools show fair to good results. Tree plantings were not too successful as the area is in farm land and used for pasture. No streamside fences were constructed; therefore, most of the trees were trampled.l '19 Lamprey Problem The parasite of fish, which has within recent times caused the most concern and greatest damages,has been the sea lamprey. Life History of the Sea Lamprey.--The sea lamprey (Pet- romyzon marinus) belongs to an almost extinct order of verte- brate animals known as Cyclostomes. It is an eel-like creature which may attain the length of twelve to twenty-four inches. It has a slim, round snake-like body which is dark above and whitish beneath. It has seven gill slits or openings which are not covered by an operculum. Unlike a fish, it has no paired fins, no scales, and no movable lower jaw. Its round mouth is lined with rows of sharp, horny knobs which serve as teeth. During the parasitic phase of its life, the sea lamprey feeds on the blood and body juices of fish. It attaches itself to its victim by means of its sucker-like mouth and with its Sharp "teeth", rasps a hole in the body of the fish. The sea lamprey must enter streams in spring to spawn. An adult female deposits an average of 61,500 eggs. Following Spawning, the adults die. Eggs hatch in two to three weeks. ~M lIbid. 183 The young nova downstream to the nearest silt bed where they burrow into the soft mud. After five to seven years as harm- less, burrowing larvae, they transform into adults about five inches long, move to the lake during the winter and early spring, and parasitize fish for 12 to 20 months. Each mature lamprey is said to destroy twenty pounds of fish in order to reach maturity. The following spring they cease feeding, move to the stream mouths, and then, when the water temperature reaches about 50 degrees, migrate upstream to spawn. The Invasion of the SeagLamprey_from the Atlantic Ocean.-- The sea lamprey is not native to the Great Lakes. It probably entered the Great Lakes through the Welland Canal about 1921. Between 1938 and 1947, Lake Huron trout production dropped from five million pounds to less than 400,000. It is now nil in Lake Huron proper. In Lake Michigan, production dropped from 6.5 million pounds in 1944 to 400 pounds in 1953. Fishermen lost an annual income of more then 5.5 million dollars. Losses to sport fisheries are inestimable. Lampreys had trouble going through the locks in St. Mary's River to reach Lake Superior. The sea lamprey was first reported from Lake Superior in 1945. By 1947, enough of then had reached Lake Superior to establish a rapidly growing population. Decrease in_;ake Trout Production in Lake Superior.-- Lake trout production dropped from an average of 4.4 million pounds per year to less than half that figure by 1956. The 184 downward trend of production in Lake Superior contin nues, as is seen in the following record of take (thousands of pounds) in different areas of Lake Superior from 1930-1956: 1 TABLE 26 LAKE TROUT WKEN FROM LAKE SUPERIOR, 1950-1956 (thousands of pounds) Michiaan Wisconsin Minnesota Ontario Total 1950 2,400 591 202 1,506 4,699 1951 2,174 504 255 1,275 4,184 1952 2,074 521 245 1,599 4,227 1953 1,746 430 217 1,571 5,784 1954 1,609 595 202 1,266 3,472 1955 1,5 5 555 170 1,005 5,104 1956 1,224 479 109 527 2,559 Not only did tr e total commercial catch of lake trout decrease, but more trout were taken bearing ugly lamprey scars. These scars decreased the commercial value of the fish sold. From data obtained from commercial catches of lake trout land- ed at Marquette, the percentage of scarred lake trout taken increased from 1950-1957. and especially in 1956 and 1957. The month of the year when the greatest percentage of the trout caught were scarred by lamprey is shown for the years -—__‘ Information from Minutes Annual Meeting, Upper Great Lakes Fishery Committee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1957, as received from W. M. Marquette, Fishery Research Biolo: ist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Marquette. 1950-1957:1 October, 1950 --- October, 1951 --- October, 1952 --- November 1955 --- November 1954 --- November 1955 -_- November 1936 --- November 1957 --- (Percentage of scarred lake 5&le es. trout obtained from commercial catches landed at Marquette, Michigan.) Jl‘fi) f7) (03» K 51 (U N! \ 1 NO‘xUIMl—‘MH ‘ \_ ‘1 ‘ ‘_ N, \ \ \V o‘\ Q ~. ow. (M. O\\ 0 The Campaign Against the Lamprey.--The sea lamprey prob- lem was fought on an international scale, with Canada and the United States tack ing the difficult problem. Headquarters for a large portion of this campaign have been located in Marquette. Here the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has operated its Upper Peninsula office for the past several years. The battle to combat the lamprey has progressed in three directions: It was necessary to prevent adult lampreys from spawning. At figgt, the fight was concentrated on trying to prevent the adult sea lampreys from spawning. Electro-mechanical weirs were developed to be operated on lamprey spawning streams flowing into the Great Lakes. The weirs intercepted the lam- preys on their upstream spawning runs and diverted them into traps, from which they were removed and killed. The pilot model for these weirs was tested on the Chocolay River, here in Marquette County. Sea lamprey weirs installed in streams in Marquette 1Information from Minutes Annual Meeting, Upper Great Lakes Fishery Committee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1957. as received from w. M. Marquette, Fishery Research Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Marquette. 186 County consist essentially Of two types. Type "B" consists of one row of electrodes hanging from a suspension and one row of pipe on the stream bottom five to eight feet upstream or down- stream from the hanging electrodes. Type "C" consists of two rows of pipe, five to eight feet apart, on the stream bottom. Type "C" is used where shallow water conditions exist up to three feet deep, and type "B" is used where water depths ex- ceed three feet. Elcctricity used to maintain an electrical field in the water is obtained from commercial power sources where possible and a standby generator is also installed on the river, so that, should the commercial power source fail, the standby generator will automatically take over until the commercial power comes back on. Upon the return of commercial power, the standby automatically turns Off. Where commercial power is not available, two generators are installed on the river, a main and a standby. Thus an effective barrier can be maintained and complete power losses are not common. All weirs are operated from the time the ice leaves the streams in the spring until lampreys stop running, usually late July or September. The table below shows the effective- aness of these weirs: TABLE 27 TOTAL SEA LAMPREY CAPTURED IN ELECTROMECHANICAL WEIRS ON STREAMS TRIBUTARY TO LAKE SUPERIOR 1N MARQUETTE COUNTY, THROUGH DEC. 31, 1958.3 §£§2§g Type 1952 1254 1955 1256 1251 1258 Sand B 0 - - - - Chocolay * 231 1227 3350 sass 8096 6221 I .II N")- TABLE 27-Continued. Stream ...—i... 3—5 :24... _{__'_ .2“... Carp C O 2 l 4 O Harlow C l l O 3 3 Little Garlic B O O - - - Big Garlic C 54 89 154 270 262 Iron B 67 206 335 737 428 Salmon-Trout B l O O - - Pine B 10 12 18 3A 22 Little Huron C O - - - - *Type of weirs installed on Chocolay River described in discussion on weirs. aSource: Letter received from w. M. flarquette, Fishery Research Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Com- mercial Fisheries, Marquette, Michigan, July 15, 1958. (Tele- phone conversation with H. Moore, F. & W. Biologist for 1958 statistics.) The weirs on the Sand, Little Garlic, Salmon-Trout, and the Little Huron were placed on standby status when lamprey failed to appear in them. The streams are kept under constant Observation in case lamprey should begin to utilize them. The first weir installed was installed on the Chocolay River in 1951. During that year A01 lamprey were taken. It was operated as an experimental weir. This experimental weir Was a Berkey Electric screen and was installed just above the M-28 bridge. A temporary mechanical weir was operated at Green Garden as a check weir. The Burkey Electric screen essentially consists of one row of hanging electrodes and two rows of pipe on the stream bottom either above or below the t Figure 17 153’th 9 five WM” LOCATIOR or LAMPREY wams '--'~ . owv mm a “on” T 5 2 N ‘3», '53 vol? _ ,, 1,. 3* MARQUETTE COUNTY I 4 MICHtGAN o Iron 8 “AV—— 1T ..--.- _ H! A M I .2. 13 Garlic River R 1 f A -__._.,.-..__y__.-_-- - all..-“ ——~~,~~~--+ -_ ‘v‘e'Little Garlic River 6 F U \M . A ...... arlow River C 3 W1 ----- -— —-- 1 ~ «- - ~ 1 ------ . Dead am N ' ‘g T bM/CH/G‘AMME 1 1 E;- Carp River sand I CHAMP/0” . "‘ UETTE River Y r__-_i_--._-__.__i._-Q_ .- _.-__.1y«-_.—~——~—~~—-«i—----Wed Chocolay zlswPE/wvs . t 1 —- ...»r ......... 1H.“ . -. -.--111-12%“- 4: m— .... Q ~ \ A I REPUBLIC , L R z ‘ -. s O 3 1 E E N T“.___’____ 1*“ m _ “T -- , ”1-? -1. _-_.__i_ ___.___,____& -. __ , -1&‘M,i___ R c t 3 ‘3 1 1 3 g 1 1, O 1 ‘5 N i wiwwl __ a - \ -- ,, \ .GWINN --.. \ ..-..- .-1- U T l s , N v 3R 30‘” DICKINSON COUNTY g y T 1 1 1 Y 1 \ 1 \RZBW fi‘ Location or Eloctromchanical 1‘ \ \ \ D lamprey Weir: on Streams Trib— i1 - X i -. , “a, E utary to Lake Superior in ‘1‘ \ \ L T 42 N Matte County. \ \ C _ -.\_i..__--_.__ 1-1-1..-- 9 ‘ MENOMiNEE ‘ l COUNTY 188 hanging roW. The principle of this unit was to stop the lam- preys but allow the fish to pass upstream through it. It did not prove satisfactory. This unit was also operated in 1952 and 1953. In 1954, a concrete and steel mechanical weir was installed at Mangum, but it was not designed to handle the large spring run-offs of this river and escapage of lampreys occurred. In 1955, a type "B" weir was installed and exper- imentation was begun to devise an electrical unit to divert large runs of fish away from the electrical field and towards the trap. EXperimentation of a direct current diversion unit interferred with the sea lamprey catch that year. Since 1956, the Chocolay has been operated as a Type "B" with a direct current diversion unit. The Pine and Sand rivers are the only streams in Mar- quette County where generators are the only source of power. The remaining weirs have always been operated as the type indicated, and have been very efficient in preventing lampreys from escaping upstream to spawn.1 The second method of attack against the sea lamprey was to kill selectively the immature, or larval, lamprey by treat- ing the streams with a chemical without affecting other aquatic life. If scientists should be successful in this attempt, they would be able to eliminate generations of young lampreys before they migrated into the Great Lakes to begin their life of predation on game and commercial fishes. 1Letter from W. M. Marquette, July, 1958, op.cit. l 9”? It took three years of testing some 6,000 chemicals before nitrOphenols containing halogens were found to be effective in killing the young lampreys and still be harmless to game fish. One of the chemicals, developed in cooperation with Dow Chemical Company of Midland and known as Dowlap, has been found to be virtually 100 per cent effective against larvae. Then in 1958, another chemical, called Lamprecid 2770 and manufactured by the Hoechst Chemical Corporation, West Warwick, Rhode Island, was tested on the Mosquito River in Alger County and the Silver River in Baraga County. It proved to be so successful, killing almost all sea lampreys and harm- ing few, if any, fish, that Fish and Wildlife Service officials are planning widespread use of the chemical. In Marquette County, the following streams have been treated to destroy the young lampreys: The Iron River was treated 9/15/58; Chocolay-~10/29/58; Big Garlic--5/ll/59; Pine--7/25/59; and the Harlow-~8/21/59.l The success of those treated in 1959 cannot be determined at this date, but the two streams treated in 958 show very favorable results. The third phase in the long-range program to restore the lake trout fishery is the propagation of these fish in hatch- eries like the one at Marquette, and their release into the Great Lakes, beginning with Lake Superior. The decision to rear lake trout stock in the Marquette fish hatchery was made eleven years ago. By 1960, it is expected that about three .— 1Conversation with John H. Howell, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marquette, Michigan, September 2, 1959. F4 ‘0 ’J illion fry-size youn lake trout will be produced for planting purposes. The first plantings in this restocking program was com- pleted in June, 1959, when lake trout were stocked in Keweenaw Bay and in Marquette Bay. Within a few years it should be possible to arrive at some estimate of how successful this vast program will be. The Commercialrfish Industry in Marquette County Marquette County, with its frontage on Lake Superior, has always played a leading role in the commercial fishing industry. In 1950, in Marquette County, there were 31 commer- cial fishing licenses issued. Commercial fish production in the county in 1950 amounted to 287,634 pounds with an estimated value of 884,888. This was a 52.2% decrease from the commer- cial fish production in the county for 1940. The losses ex- perienced from the Lake Superior ports of the county were in the more valuable lake trout and whitefish catches.1 The Biennial Report of the Michigan Department of Con- servation lists the commercial fisheries catch in pounds from the Michigan waters of Lake Superior for the years 1956 and 1957. A portion of the table appears on the following page: lEbasco report on Michigan's Upper Peninsula, op.cit. p.161. 192 TABLE 28 COMXERCIAL FISHERIES FROM THE MICHIGAN WATERS OF LAKE SUPERIOR---1956-l957 lijfi-Lbs. i956-v81ue l957-Lbs. l957-Value Lake herring 3,719,225 $204,557.38 5,016,789 $275,925.40 Lake trout 1,223,932 526,290.76 848,773 393,832.99 Lake whitefish 373,746 168,185.70 236,057 132,664.03 Chubs 88,197 14,023.32 67,545 9,794.03 Round whitefish 15,256 1,725.28 25,553 3,040.81 White and red- horse suckers 10,627 657.62 24,285 2,282.79 Smelt 7,616 224.19 34 1.02 Yellow perch 3,011 304.11 1,79L 202.72 Yellow pike 918 235.93 365 127-92 Longnose suckers 259 14.25 479 38-32 Lake sturgeon 76 45.45 385 239.35 Burbot 44 .55 263 2.87 Northern pike 29 ”.95 30 5.90 Sauger 4 .47 29 7.05 Carp - -- 3 .09 Source: Department of Conservation, Nineteenth Biennial Report, 1957-1953, pp. 93-94- XIII. WILDLIFE--A MAJOR RESOURCE OF MARQUETTE COUNTY flgldlife Defined Wildlife actually includes all living things which live on the land or in the water without the control or direction of man. As this report deals primarily with the major econ- omic resources of Marquette County, many of the minor forms of wildlife, many of which are extremely important, must be omitted. The wildlife resource in this report is confined to the mammals and the game birds. fighting License Sales Michigan is a leading state for the hunting of wildlife as shown by license sales. The table below shows the trend to ever increasing license sales from 1950 to 1950: TABLE 29 MICHIGAN LICENSE SALES FOR 1930, 1940, 1950* Iype of License Sold 1259 1940 1950 Resident Small-game 332,726 537,655 627,415 Non-resident Small-game 1,843 2,909 4,844 Resident Deer 75,339 176,314 379,375 Non-resident Deer 201 1,455 7,311 *Source: Game Division, Michigan Department of Con- servation, Lansing. —_ 193 194 The 1258 License Receipts.--The total receipts from Lhe sale of resident deer licenses in Michigan in 1958 amounted to $2,026,685.22. The non-resident deer licenses sold amounted to $303,433.12. The bow and arrow deer licenses sold brought in $218,786.97. The receipts in 1958 for the resident small game licenses sold in Michigan amounted to $1,951,561.97, and $116,751.97 from the sale of non-resident small game licenses. Trapping licenses brought in an additional $29,065.34 to Michigan in 1958.1 Values of the Wildlife Resource From the above figures alone, the value and importance of the wildlife resource in Michigan is obvious. In Michigan, a fur crop worth about two million dollars is produced annual- ly. The meat value of game animals taken in the state is even larger. About two and three-fourths million dollars worth is harvested each year. An annual income of four and one-half million dollars in fur and meat from wild mammals means that the people of Michigan have a tremendous investment in this Wildlife resource. Controlling_Man's Enemies.--According to w. L. McAtee of the Fish and Wildlife Service, in the more humid parts of the eastern United States, the annual value of wildlife averages about 14 cents per acre per year for meat, and 25 cents per acre for the destruction of insects and other pests Which hinder or retard crop production. These estimates —_— _. w—u—u- 1Department of Conservation, hineteenth Biennial Report, 1957-1958, p024. 195 1 suggest values that run into millions of dollars. Value of Wildlife.--The economic inport- The aesthetic evident, but wildlife has other less tan- ance of wildlife is Besides the birds and mammals doing much to gible values. control the insect and rodent populations, a recent survey showed that farmers enjoyed having game animals and birds on their land whether they hunted or not. In other words, seeing and hearing the wildlife is sufficient reason for encouraging wildlife on their farms. Watching the wildlife gives moments of relaxation and enjoyment which otherwise would not be possible. The tourist also is thrilled to see wildlife. The wildlife resource is partially responsible for making the tourist industry the second largest industry in Michigan. Marquette County, owned public hunting grounds and the many additional acres of is an ideal with its thousands of acres of state- private lands which have few or no restrictions, area for hunting, trapping, and enjoying the many forms of wildlife that abound in the county. M . Table 50 which follows, lists 49 mammals found in Mar- 9uette County. The list was compiled mainly from William H. Burt's comprehensive study of the mammals of Michigan,2 and ammals of Marquette County 1?. E. McNall, Our Natural Resources (Danville, 111.: __._‘ The Interstate, 1954), p.202. , 2W1111am H. Burt, The Mammals of Michi an (Ann Arbor: ~m1Versity of Michigan Press, 1 , 2 i pp. Order Insectivora Chiroytera Carnivora Rodentia 196 T5 LE 30 THE HAHMALS 0F HARCUETTE COUNTY Scientific Name Condylura cristata Sorex cinereus Sorex arcticus laricorum Sorex palustris hydrobadistes Microsorex hoyi Blarina brevicauda kirtlandi Myotis lucifugus lucifugus Myotis keenii septentrionalis Lesionycceris noctivagans Eptesicus fuscus fuscus Lasiurus borealis borealis Lasiurus cinereus Ursus americanus americanus Procyon lotor lotor Mustela cicognanii ciCOgnanii Hustela frenata noveboracensis Mustela rimosa allegheniensis Mustela vison Lutra canadensis canadensis Haphitia mephicis hudsonica Taxidea taxus taxus Vulpes fulva Urocyon c. cinereoargenteus Canis latrans latrans Canis lupus lycaon Lynx canadensis canadensis Lynx rufus rufus Marmara monax Citellus t. Eutamias minimum jackson 1 Tamias scriacus Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Sciurus carolinensis Glaucomys sabrinus necrosis Castor canadensis michiganensis Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis Synaptomys cooperi cooperi Clethrionomys g. gapperi Microsus p. pennsylvanicus Ondacra zibethica zibethica Rattus norvegicus ems nusculus tridecemlineatus Common Name Star-nosed mole Masked shrew Saddle-back shrew Water shrew Pygmy shrew Short-tailed shrew Little brown bat Keen bat Silver-haired bat Big brown bat Red bat Hoary bat Black bear Raccoon Short-tailed weasel Long-tailed weasel Least weasel Mink River otter Striped skunk Badger Red fox Gray fox Coyote Timber wolf Lynx Bobcat Woodchuck Striped ground squirrel Least chipmunk Eastern chipmunk Red squirrel Gray squirrel Northern flying squirrel Beaver Woodland deermouse Bog Ian-sing Red-backed vole Meadow vole Muskrat House rat House louse F.) TABLE 30-Cont inued . Order Scientific Name Common Name Rodentia Zapus hudsonius Meadow jumping mouse a Napaeozapus insignia frutectanus Woodland jumping mouse Erethizon dorsatum dorsatum Porcupine Lagomnrpha Lepus americanus Snowshoe hare Sylelagus floridanus mearnsii Cottontail Artiodactyla Odocoileux virginianus borealis White-tailed deer Alces americana americana Moose from Dr. Richard Manville's study of the small mammal popula- 1 Game tion of the Huron Mountain area of Narquette County. Division files of the Michigan Department of Conservation, and personal observations also helped to determine the mammals that were found in the county. The abundance of many of the game mammals harvested in Marquette County is given later in this report along with hunting and traoping statistics. Certainly the following mammals could be included as those commonly found in the county: white-tailed deer, black bear, beaver, otter, red fox, coyote, raccoon, mink, weasel, skunk, bobcat, woodchuck, red squirrel, gray squirrel, porcupine, muskrat, and snowshoe hare. According to Manville,2 the woodland deermouse appears to be the most abundant mammal of the Huron Mountains of L ! ' of Small Mammal Populations 1Richard H. Manville, A Stud _, ,_ in Northern Nichiran (Misc. P b. Michigan, 19395, 93 pp. 91b1d., pp. 32 and 70. A 11 A Marquette County, comprising nearly 50% of the small mammal population. The red-backed vole is also very abundant in that region of the county. Species of mammals found rarely in Marquette County might include the badger, gray fox, lynx, and moose. The rare species of small mammals trapped or observed by Manville in the Huron Nountain area included the star-nosed mole, water shrew, woodland Jumping mouse, and the pygmy shrew--the small- est of Michigan mammals. Table 30 includes such species as the saddle-back shrew, silver-haired bat, red bat, hoary bat as being found in Marquette County. According to Burt,l these species are found in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, although no positive proof of their being found in Marquette County was given. This is also true of the least weasel which, according to Burt,2 probably occurs over the entire state. Omitted from the table of the list of the mammals found in Marquette County are several species which are found in the Upper Peninsula. The marten was recently introduced into the Porcupine Mountains State Park in the western part of the Peninsula. The table also excludes such species as the prairie deermouse and the white-footed mouse which are found in Menominee County in the Upper Peninsula. There is a possibility that they could have extended their range to Marquette County. Since both have a more southern distribution 1Burt, 0p.cit. 2Burt, op.cit., p.139. 4 \C) 19 and occupy *ér— :CL Earn areas of the state, they were ex- cluded from the Marquette County list until positive proof is found. The European hare, a rare exotic species, has been found occasionally in Michigan. One specimen was taken in Ontonagon County in the Upper Peninsula. It, too, was omitted from the list of mammals of Marquette County, but could accidentally be present. The mammals which are found in Hichigan, but are not found in the Upper Peninsula, according to Burt,l include the opossum, prairie mole, least shrew, Indiana bat, evening bat, southern flying squirrel, prairie vole, pine vole, and elk. Other mammals listed in Burt's book2 which are no longer found in Michigan are the fisher, wolverine, caribou, bison, and cougar. Occasional reports have been made of a cougar being seen in this area, but none have been substan- tiated. The White—tailed Deer in iarguette Cgpnty Deer as a Resource.--Michigan's deer herd is one of the State's great natural resources. The herd in Michigan of about a million animals provides recreation annually for about 400,000 hunters. Its aesthetic value throughout the remainder of the year is enjoyed by many thousands of residents and tourists. The income to Michigan people, directly or indirect- ly, because of the deer herd runs into millions of dollars lIbid. 21bid. ’3'". Pi C- \J \u annually. The deer herd is also an important resource of Marquette County. History of Deer Herd.--The history of deer and their range in Marquette County follows the pattern and trends of northern Michigan. It is believed that deer were scarce in Michigan 100 years ago. There were endless miles of dense forests of pine, hardwood, hemlock, and heavily timbered swampland. Deer found poor winter cover and almost no winter food under this big timber as dense shade produces no food for deer. During the past one hundred years, northern Michigan has witnessed drastic changes from vast areas of primeval forest where deer were scarce, to the more fortunate situation which followed the logging operations. Young tree growth provided abundant food, and the deer herd increased in numbers. In spite of the abundance of good habitat, deficiencies began to appear in some of the deer ranges. Surveys revealed a shortage of winter food in a number of deeryards. As the deer had increased in numbers, the staple winter food, cedar, having been overbrowsed for many years, failed to grow back within reach of deer. The Upper Peninsula deer herd apparently reached a peak in about 1949, and has declined somewhat since. Deer HuntingReggig£l2£§.--Marquette County, like the entire Upper Peninsula, has always had an open season for the hunting of deer. However, in certain areas under the "Buck Law of 1921", the deer herd had become too large for the available winter food supply, so that starvation of deer was prevalent. In 1952, Michigan had its first major "any deer" season. An "any d~er" season in Michigan implies the hunting of bucks, (I) does, and fawns in certain designated areas. The des gnated areas in 1952 were located only in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The intensive sampling search for dead deer conducted in the spring of 1956 found evidence that about 7A,COO deer had been lost due to starvation in the Upper Peninsula. In the fall of 1956, the first special season area was assigned in Marquette County. The area included a small part of the county in the south-western portion. It was a part of a larger area known as Area 21 which extended through Dickin- son County into Iron County. During this special season 210 deer were killed in the Upper Peninsula. However, those recorded taken in Marquette County amounted to only 15 deer-- 6 fawns, l buck and 8 does.1 Marquette County had no special season areas in 1937. In 1958, Michigan had 37 special season areas open to the taking of any kind of deer. Hunting was by permit only, with quotas set for each area. All of the areas in northern Nich- igan (Areas 2-37) were open concurrently so that permit holders could take any kind of deer in the area for which they held a permit during the regular November 15-30 deer season. lLee Eberhardt, Game Division, Deer Biological Data (Report No. 2135; Lansing: Department of Conservation,'3uly, 1957) ! p.570 (‘9 (j ) [\3 Of the 37 areas, two of these included portions of Mar- quette County. Area 32, which consisted of 449 square miles, was found almost exclusively in Marquette County. The quota of permits for this area was 1,996, but the estimate of the number of hunters that used the permit was 1,930. The antler- less deer and bucks with sub-legal antlers (less than three inches) killed in this area in 1958 was 900. The legal bucks taken by permittees and other hunters were recorded in Report number 2221 on regular season kill.l Including the legal bucks killed in this area by permittees, it was estimated that the total deer killed in Area 32 by permittees was 1,160. This would mean an overall hunting success of permittees of 68%. The number killed was approximately what game biOIOgists had expected for this area.2 Area 31 also included a portion of Marquette County for the special season in 1958. Area 31 extended from Alger County into the northeastern part of Marquette County. It consisted of 278 square miles and had a quota of 1,030 permits. The estimate of the actual number of hunters in this area was 1,010, and the estimate of the actual kill of antlerless deer and bucks with sub-legal antlers was 480. The overall hunting success of permittees was 58%.3 1Lee Eberhardt, Game Division, 12§8 Regular Season Deer Klll.§§£imat§§ (Report No. 2221; Lansing: Department of Con- servation, May 18, 1959). 2 pp. 2Lee Eberhardt, Game Division, Deer Kill Estimates-~1 58 Egggial Seasons (Lansing: Department of Conservation, May 1 , Jtpoo 2 “Ibid. no? L; t“ 1 For 1939, the Upper Peninsula "any deer" area was increased from 3,600 square miles in 1958 to 7,150 square miles in 1959. All told, 35,160 permits will be offered in the 15 special permit areas in the Upper Peninsula in 1959. Biologists hope the permit holders will harvest 14,340 deer.l Three special areas, of the above 15, extend into Mar- quette County. They include the Huron Mountain Area of 154 square miles in size; the Ralph Area with 1,161 square miles; and the Whitefish Area of 1,078 square miles. These three areas will account for an "any deer" season in the northern, southern, and eastern portions of Marquette County. Only the western and central part of the county remains as a "buck only' area. Deer Hunting §uccess_ig_fia§gu§ttg_ggunty.--Deer hunting in Marquette County ranks with the best in the state. Though not hunted as heavily as some other areas, this county, in numbers of deer killed and in hunter success ratio, ranks among the leaders. For the years 1948-1951, the percentage of hunters successful in Marquette County was estimated to range from 36.7 to A3.3£. For comparison, in 1951, only three counties in the Lower Peninsula had percentages over 30%. They were Alcona with 31.0%, Alpena with 36.2%, and Presque Isle County with 38.0%. Deer hunting information for the years 1948-1951 follows. It was compiled from deer hunters' report cards of the kill ‘_ l '"U. P. 'Any Deer' Area Increased to 7,150 Square Miles in 1959.’ The MininggJournal (Marquette), Auiust 21, 1959, p.14, C‘- 3+ (\D during the gun season, November 15-30 inclusive. TAPLE 31 DEER HUNTING INFORMATION FOR MARQUETTE COUNTY 19ed-1951 No. Deer Hunters Hunters Deer kill Year Hunters Killed Successful per sq. mi per sq. mi. 1948 9,229 3,393 3900/75 Set 200 1949 9,127 3,950 43.3% 4.9 2.1 1950 9,095 3,771 41.5% 4.9 2.0 1951 8,292 3,041 36.7% 4.: .16 w— —— To get better information on the results of deer kill, and on the new 1952 ”any deer" season regulations, the Conser- vation Department used several new methods of obtaining results. Of special importance was a statistically reliable post-card poll of deer hunters. Most of the figures before 1952 were from hunters' voluntary report cards, which probably have tended to indicate kills somewhat higher than the actual numbers. For the regular deer hunting seasons for the years 1952- 1957, the Marquette County d-er kill, using the new system of estimating deer kill, records the figures as shown in the Table which follows: D 3 TABLE 32 DEER HUNTING INFORMATION FOR MARQUETTE COUIT‘ 1952-1957 Year Marquette Marquette U. P. Michigan County County Deer Deer Hunters Deer Kill Kill Kill 1952 10,230 1,730 19,260 61,600 1953 12,310 2,790 26,340 70,450 1954 10,840 2,730 24,360 53,570 1955 11,540 3,300 29,160 73,620 1956 11,500 2,530 24,220 60,940 1957 11,650 2,465 21,740 62,560 Source: Game Division, Department of Conservation, Estimates b Count Deer Kill K g, , Report No. 21 3, 195 . Regular Seasons--1 52 9; to 1937, Food and Cover Conditions for Deerfin_Marquette County.-- Summer food and cover for deer is abundant in Marquette County. There is some deer damage to farm crops in local areas, but with such a small percentage of the area of the county in agriculture, the damage is not extensive. In many areas the forest is in all stages of growth, from open grass, to uncut, big timber. In the Upper Peninsula, only 10% of the summer range has cover suitable for winter use. Special surveys by game men and conservation officers have recorded 298 different winter deer-yarding areas in the Upper Peninsula totaling 1:589 square miles.1 _ 1I. H. Bartlett, Game Division, Michi an Deer (Lansing: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1950}, p.17. In winter, yardin: areas of heavy cover provide deer with protection from storms as well as food. The deeryards in Karquette County are generally cedar swamps. These may be conifer swamps with cedar varying in amount from none to solid stands. They may be a mixture of swamp conifers and lowland and upland hardwood. 0r these yards may be upland hardwoods with a mixture of conifers. The conifer mixture may include cedar, spruce, balsam or hemlock. Of the 298 deer-yarding areas found in the Upper Penin- sula of Michigan. 33 of these are located in Marquette County. The following maps locate these deeryards in the county as well as indicate their condition as of January 1, 1958. Although one of the maps has the date of January 1, 1954, the explanation for this according to Edmund J. Tucker, Game Eiologist, is as follows: "The maps of southwest Marquette County, dated January 1, 1954, are actually correct up to January 1, 1953. We have had no change in food conditions in that portion of the county for several years now, so sub- sequently the Department felt that it would be a waste of money to reprint the map just to make a date change."1 On the maps, the food conditions are rated as "Good", "Medium", or "Poor". According to I10 Bartlett,‘ these rating terms have the following meaning: 1 ‘1 —— 1Letter from Edmund J. Tucker, Game Biologist, Depart- ment of Conservation, Escanaba, August 14, 1959. 2Conversation with 110 H. Bartlett, Deer Investigations Specialist, Game Division, Department of Conservation, Lansing, August 22, 1920 .z". gag-«anu- w-v- . - 'Ir . -"v--"'< - .. 1:1 I" {on at ‘ it}, E“ “Ht CS '9— SUCM HSP NORTH PA 207 MARQUETTE COUNTY DISTRIBUTED BY Figure 18 T52N \ LIMITED ~~--HURON MOUNTAIN ( FREE DISTRIBUTION DEER RANGE Cmmmmmwmm $150 LEGEND STAT: LANDS OED! CA TED FOR STAYE roazsIs PARKS AND MICHIGAN 0min runLIc CDNSERVATIONU 5.5 7 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION -30UNDARY SIATE FORESTS, PARKS. ETC.* ”0U * * * . Puauc FISHING SITES. G SITE NOT I‘SABCE I FOREST CAMP GROUNDS. ‘ COUNTY PARKS. YOU COULD NOT ENJOY THE CLEAN WHOLESOME RECREATION OF THIS COUNTY STATE :OLDS EASEMENIRFDR PUBLIC FISNING ALONG.STREAM ES INDICATED BIG SAY IF II IS THE POLICY NOT TO HIS? or IAIE LANDS IN on NATIONAL PROJECT AREAS. ExcszIIsms uAv a: MADE IN CERTAIN :ASES INER RE VNE LANDS ARE DESIRED FDA AGNIcuLIuaz on Io CON- DIIIEI‘I: DBNENSNIP. FOR FUNTNER INFORMATION INDUIRE LANOS . EVARTMENT or CONSERVAIION, LANSING 26, MICHIGAN, ITS FORESTS WERE BURNED OVER STATE OWNERSHIP JUNE 1, 1957 LEGEND T5IN PAVE!) ROADS a 0 ITS STREAMS WERE POLLUTED Towns HUN‘HNG ANO FISHING GOOD DIRY Roms T CAMPS AND RESORTS $321?" Rows 0 RAILROAD SIAIIDNS. FOUR ITS CA_ME_S_IT-E—§ WERE UNSANITARY CORNERS E RAIIAEIEAKS ’15-" Town HALLS N” “;“W” Runows A 3335: AND IF “”3“" ‘I' CEMETERIES R”: “I LAKES Q CONSERVAIION DEPARTMENT UNITS INTERISMIIZNETEEWS 0 FOREST FIRE UM..“.. :Us .: nu~w~s Ams THERE WERE no GAME 0R FISH 4.0% P PATROL CABINS A TOURIST CAMI’S AND PARKS r GOLF COURSES AIIH’LAIIEW ELANDING FIELDS 55°: STREEVONISEA T2212? intSuMMIIS OR PEAKS * BOU UNDARY I INES ARE SHOWN TO DESIGNATE THE I IMITSO KEEP MICHIGAN CLEAN AND GREEN C o U228ERVATIONR PR OJECTS. ONLY COLORED AREAS ARE PUBLIC LANDS ORED AREAS ARE PRIVATE LANDS. REPORT FOREST FIRES AND RETURN NEXT YEAR DEERYARDS T0 JAN. I, I958 I * I . 0‘ -GOOD FOOD CONDITIONS C; MEDIUM FOOD CONDITIONS -POOR- FOOD CONDITIONSW ECHO LAKE <<\ Forest T49 N. D‘ O TAM m... swamps: ISLAND 7"“. u' I4BN Headquarters azsw R27w A RBOW H29W. I A H EL P PR EV EN T F0 RE ST FIR ES NORTH PART MARQUETTE SOUTHWEST PART MARQUETTE COU NTY DISTRIBUTED BY UMHED FREE DISTRIBUTION Complete set all counlies R28w 5031071 I... J"- v aux/11M” It MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION R3ow. stw. I It I I; Mlznrvamml Lake :IORITE I} 0 II “ I ”:9 ‘Ix‘fle’h. Am" (a; J J (MD/IA Mm II D b A¥t%$“”fidfigfiécg79 I w I quIk ~~XI .I um \ I, OJ. DULUTH ‘ I I , 4 9”“ Q v/A “ NUMNLDY 6 . 'Nf’? 55357;??? . "l i‘ 5:“ ‘ Am , .mm _ I “M , —‘ ‘II — “ ,5; m m . .W ~., "My , I ”‘V M25 \ NI)“ .. .. I , EA 0 ,1 . \ H I A“ .1»!!! en; a i «if; My." \ ‘11 *** a YOU COULD NOT ENJOY THE CLEAN WHOLESOME RECREATION OF THIS COUNTY ..R‘ um ’ (In ', III} TWA/A. Mr m", ‘I MATT: NM.“ ,1 Im ., I wanna” a! I2m- R 9m IV v If” Pm" L IF 1 g a: 9 ' R W“? ,. .I 5 a ., WLsT / ISNFEMING Am . Jvm ,p’Y stinuufd'w . ., c U \ __ ,— ,\ RY I , I .(, ’» It)! Ore:nwood ITS FORESTS WERE BURNEO OVER ~ ImIoII-IL Ill Lac ~.\II / T47N T-4TN ITS STREAMS WERE POLLUTED 2| I .. I mum". AY " ' 2' ' 1721‘. .' awn-w \ Ll! ITS CAMP SITES WERE UNSANITARY a: mm I, Am. ’,' “Wm. ”a In" H AND IF “I THERE WERE N0 GAME 0R FISH ” KEEP MICHIGAN CLEAN AND GREEN REPORT FOREST FIRES AND RETURN NEXT YEAR *** cm NONI u mt: my CH Irm . mug. ‘6”; a». I EPA” as ”Th hCOUNTI/_r—~<>< Slater S-----------—------—-—----_—--- L4 V's ><>< KCFarland-------------——----’-—-—----- X X ‘r 1 Little West--------------------------- it Negiected----------—------------------ x V Arn01d------‘------‘------------------ XX Southwest Part of Marquette Count 5 .4 r"! >< al.,; hr“. Desner Lake-------------u------------- > k)‘ (\r Deer Health.--The health of the deer in Marquette County, as in the state as a whole, is considered excellent. Among large numbers of deer autopsies, no serious parasite or dis- ease has been found. Nose or throat bots, liver flukes, and lung worms are present in numbers varying from year to year, but are not a serious menace to the welfare of the herd. Hunters need have no fear of venison from deer infested with these parasites. Normal temperatures occurring in the Upper Peninsula are not critical for deer. While long periods of sub-zero weather 212 are detrimental to their welfare, even srch occurrences are not necessarily critical if good winter food is plentiful and obtainable, and the deer are in good physical condition at the beginning of the cold period. Deer Nanagement.-—The future of tre deer herd in Mar- quette County, like that of the entire state, depends upon proper game management. Tomorrow's herd will depend upon its food supply. The food supply can be assured only if the herd is successfully managed. Much research has been, and is being, conducted regard- ing the prOper management of the deer. Some of the methods used to better determine populations of deer are deer drives, pellet surveys, employees deer counts, and hifhway deer kills. Management through cuttings of merchantahle timber is still the best tool for preserving and improving range. Every effort should be made to maintain as short a rotation of timber as is possible, consistent with other multiple uses of the land. This is not only necessary for deer but for many other species of wildlife. Other tools for range management include herbicide spraying, controlled burning, and dishing along deeryards to increase suckering of favored tree species. A necessary companion to range management is control of the size of the deer herd. Keither can be successful without the other. A balance be ween the range, food, and size of herd is essential. A conclusion drawn from the facts on the deer herd of l 219 \ Michigan by Lee Eb *hardt, Game Biologist and Statistician, 'D H 010 ical standpoint, our recent deer hunt- m (1‘ *4- was that, "From (V c ing regulations have been very conservative. Undoubtedly Michigan's deer herd not only could support a much larger legal deer harvest, but it would also he benefited by such a harvest--in physical condition, fawn production, and condition of the winter range."1 ‘1 n warouette County 4 an O ’nh 086 i o - est member of the deer family, has '9 3 The moose, the lar. (. been seen recently in Marquette County. Moose had been re- leased in the Upper Peninsula between 1934 and 1937 from the starving herd on Isle Royals. Some of these were seen in Marquette County at that time. Moose had been seen quite frequently in the eastern Upper Peninsula for the past few years. However, they were not reported in Marquette County since 1937, until the fall of 1958. At this time a large bull moose was sighted near the southeastern city limits of Marquette, near the Junction of highways M-28 and U.S. 41.2 In the spring of 1959, a moose was seen in the neighbor- hood of the Sagola Swamp, near the Marquette-Dickinson County line. Then a moose was observed south of Princeton, near Gwinn, in Marquette County. In May, 1959, a moose was sighted lLee Eberhardt, Game Division, Deer in 1258, Significance 9£_Recent Information (Game Division nformat on Circular-113; Lansing: Department of Conservation, August, 1958), p.24. 2Files of William E. Laycock, Regional Game Supervisor, Department of Conservation, Marquette, Michigan. June, 1959. 214 s. This adult moose (D in Marquette County by several authoriti was seen in the eastern part of Marquette County, southeast of Dukes. The moose sighted are believed to be animals that migrated into the Upper Peninsula from Ontario via the St. Mary's River, or their descendants. Over fifty reports of moose in the Upper Peninsula were made by reliable authorities in 1958, most of these from the eastern part of the Upper Peninsula.1 It is believed that the moose have become established in the Upper Peninsula as the reports included bulls, cows, and calves. William E. Laycock, Regional Game Supervisor for the Michigan Department of Conservation, Marquette, believes that the habitat in the Marquette area may not be entirely to the liking of moose, which, he thinks, may have caused the animals to range more widely than they would normally. Thus, perhaps, one or two moose could account for all the sightings that have occurred in the county. The Black Bear in Marquette County The black bear is a common big game animal found in Marquette County. They are occasionally seen crossing the highways, and are quite an attraction for tourists and residents at some of the garbage dumps. Marquette County has no record of a bear attacking or injuring a person, although the black bear has been known to be both troublesome and dangerous in certain parts of the United States. It is the same species of lIbid. H) VJ ‘JI black bear found in Marquette County as that reported to be so harmful in some of the National Parks of the West. Accord- ing to Trippensee, grizzly bears at the National Parks have, to date, given very little trouble to humans. It is the hand- ling of the black bear in the National Parks that has been the problem. Park officials are making every effort to keep down 0“ ‘ I L the numbers of persons injured and property damaged.1 nere- fore, people in Marquette County should be warned that it is dangerous to approach bears too closely at feeding areas, such as at garbage dumps. They should also realize that the pres- ence of the black bear need not interfere with the enjoyment that can be found in the out-of—doors and in wilderness areas. Histgpy gfi Bear Regulations.g-Prior to 1925, bears were unprotected in Michigan and could be taken by any means at any time of the year. The bear was designated as a game animal in 1925 and given state-wide protection by the Legislature. Between 1925 and 1934, the state-wide season on bear occurred during the deer season and trapping of bear was prohibited. The bag limit was set at one bear per year during the open season. In 1927, the Legislature passed a law providing payment for damage done by bears. This law was repealed in 1933; passed again in 1957; and finally repealed in 1939. 1Reuben E. Trippensee, Wi d i e Nana e ent {New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 19385 p.173. 2Game Division, Historv of Bear Regulations (Report #2177; Lansing: Department of Conservation, 1957), 7 pp, In 1937, there was a special season for taking bear and In 1939, the Legislature removed deer with the bow and arrow. all protection on bear but the authority was given to the The Commission Conservation Commission to furnish protection. adopted a policy, which was retained until 1953, of providing protection only in those counties for which the Board of Super- visors requested protection. ten of the 15 counties of the Upper Although by 1952, Peninsula had no protection on bear, Marquette County main- tained its protection, llowing the hunting of bear only dur- ing the regular hunting seasons. In 1953, bear were again given protection throughout the state. Besides the regular season during the deer season, an additional special fall bear season was provided at this a spring and summer bear season was pro- time. Also in 1953, vided to the Upper Peninsula region. The Michigan Game Law Digest for 1958 lists the follow- ing bear hunting regulations and seasons for Marquette County: (These same seasons and regulations apply to the other counties of the Upper Peninsula.) Use of dogs September l-lS: Under small game license. permitted. October l-November 5: Under small game license. Use of dogs permitted. Under bow and arrow deer hunting October l-November 5: license. Use of dogs prohibited. November 15-30: Under regular deer hunting license. Use of dogs prohibited. The bag limit for the entire state is one bear per person A1 I' ‘A 7 ’ is unlawful to trap bear except undei per calendar it also unlawful to possess a live tear It is year. special permit. taken in this state. Bear Kill Statistig§.--Marquette County ranks high for the number of bear killed each year, although it is difficult to determine the actual numoers killed within the county. Records of bear killed in Marquette County since 1936 are included with the other counties of the Upper Peninsula to give the bear kill statistics shown in Table 3A. The totals for the Lower Peninsula and for the State are given Since 1955 the mail survey (by post cards) These for comparison. of deer hunters has included a question on bear kill. reports cover only the bear killed by deer hunters and does not include the bear killed under a small game license. TABLE 34 BEAR KILL STATISTICS* Year Lower Pen n ‘la St ls 1936 -------- 306 -------- ---—--- 302 -------------- 626 1937 -------- 243 ..... - ------- -- 313 -------------- 563 1938 -------- 270 --------------- 328 ------—------- 593 1939 -------- 336 .......... ----- 292 -------------- 628 1940 -------- 556 ---—-----—-—--- 233 -------------- 789 1941 -------- 419 --------------- 366 ------- ------- 785 1942 -------- 354 ---------- ----- 303 ------ - ----- -- 657 19h} -------- 346 --------------- 385 -------------- 731 1944 -------- 608 --------------- 410 -- --------- - 1,018 1945 -------- 546 --------------- 470 ------------ 1,016 1946 ‘C------ 593 ---~---‘----’-- 697 “-'- ....... 1,650 1947 -------- 900 --------------- 839 ----------~- 1,739 1948 -------- 938 ----------- ---- 562 ------------ 1,530 1949 ------ -- 382 -------- - ------ 334 ------------ 716 1950 -------- 815 ............ --- 364 ------- ----- 1,179 195 -------- 749 --------------- 361 ------------ 1,110 1952 -------- 8A0 --------------- 317 ---------- -- 1,157 1953 ~------- 987 --------------- 224 - ----------- 1,211 1954 -------- 690 --------------- 300 ~----------- 1,190 Us) TABLE Be-Continued. Year Upper Peninsula nger Peninsula State Totals 1955 ----—---- 310 -------- - ----- - 510 ------------—- 520 1956 --------- 490 ------- -------- 520 -----~-------- 810 1957 ~-------- 620 ----- - --------- 200 -------------- 820 *Source: Game Division, History of Bear Regulations, Report #2177, op.cit. p.7. The Bountied Predators Bounties have cost the State of Michigan over three million dollars since the first bounty was established in 1858. As these bounties are now paid out of the Game and Fish Protection Fund (financed largely by hunting and fishing license money) the sportsmen of Michigan have been paying about $200,000 annually for the so-called control of foxes, coyotes, bobcats, and wolves. The number of predators that were turned in for the colfection of the bounty in Marquette County for the ten-year period 1949-1958 are given in Tables 35-38.1 Some of the animals that were turned in for the collection of the bounty in Marquette County may have been taken in the surrounding counties, although this is usually not the case. Regardless, these figures would show the relative abundance of these pred- ators in the Marquette County area. Red Fox.--The current red fox bounty has cost the sports- men of Michigan over one million dollars since it took effect ‘ 1Obtained statistics for these tables from the files of iaymond D. Schofield, Predator Research Specialist, Game Division, Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan. 219 in 1947. The bounty on the red fox in Michigan is five dollars. Marquette County averaged 253.5 foxes per year for the past ten years (1949-1959). This however, is not as large as many counties in the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. (There is no bounty on the gray fox, although occasionally one is trapped in the county.) See Table 55. Coyote.--The coyote bounty was established in Michigan in 1935. Since its incurrence, over one million dollars was spent for the bounty of this animal. Michigan bounty trappers have harvested about 5,000 coyotes annually. The average number harvested in Marquette County for the past ten years has been 273.7 coyotes. The bounty on the coyote has been $15 for a male and $20 for the female. Bounty figures indicate Michigan's coyote population has remained at a stable level during recent years (see Table 36). The bounty trapping of coyotes does not seem to be making any progress in reducing the breeding stock, but only removes the surplus. Bobcats.--Thc bobcat has a peculiar status in Michigan. It carries a bounty of $5.00 in the Upper Peninsula and is protected in the Lower Peninsula, except during the December 15 to March 15 hunting season. Protection for the bobcat in Lower Michigan resulted from increased interest in winter hunting of bobcats as a sport. In recent years about 800 bobcats are bountied annually in the Upper Peninsula at a cost of about $4,000 each year. The bounty seems to have no visable effect on the population of bobcats in the Upper Peninsula. When it was removed for three and one-half years and then FOXES BOUNTIED FOR THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD 1949-1955 Marquette Upper Year Ccunty Peninsula Michigan 19a9 299 3.479 24.621 1950 527 2,970 21,124 1951 247 3,110 18,681 1932 252 3,078 16,461 1953 194 3,453 19.532 1954 329 3,870 26.954 1955 173 2,521 5,157 1956 162 2,875 28,476 1957 275 2,960 27,629 1958 297 3,168 31,942 TABLE 3 COYOTES POUNTIED FOR THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD 1949-1953 Marquette Upper Year County Peninsula Michigan 1949 258 2,740 3,130 1950 135 2,925 3,229 1951 36 2.937 3.231 1952 273 2,691 2,939 1953 225 2,941 5,148 1954 330 .510 3,715 1955 257 2,982 3,181 1956 276 3,092 3,352 1957 314 3.564 3.359 1958 308 3,335 ,663 '3")? 5.. f- A. reinstated, bounty records failed to note any increase in the bobcat pOpulation while t1 (1) J‘ O C: :3 (ff :4 :3 p.) 0 O H) H) o H C" $3 01 O ’ ‘J 6 (T) :3 (j I (D «:0 5 9 recommended that the bobcat be remove: from the bounty list. The average number of bobcats bountied in Marquette County for the past an years has been 65.3 (see Table 57). Wolves.--The wolf bounty, oldest of its type, has been in effect since 1855, except for the 1921-1954 period when all bounties were lifted. Mammalogists, some sportsmen, and con- servationists were seeking the elimination of the bounty in recent years because of the waning wolf population. The bounty on the wolf of $15 for the male, and $20 for the female, was removed by Legislative action during the spring of 1959. From the figures in Table 53, it can be noted th small numbers that were bountied. The average number of wolves bountied in Karquette County for the past ten years was only 1.1. So few wolves remain in Michigan that it is certain they could not be a serious menace to the deer herd. All of Michigan's timber wolves are found on the Upper Peninsula mainland or on Isle Royale in Lake Superior. Biolo- gists say wolves now are restricted to seven remote areas in the Upper Peninsula and to Isle Royale. There has been no record of a wolf being killed in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan since 1907. Major Small Game Species in Marquette County The major small game species in Marquette County include the snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse, ducks, cottontail rabbit, geese, coots, gray squirrels, woodcock, raccoon, and the black \)i (In BOBCATS POUNTIED FOR TH? TEII-YEAR PE?IOD 19.9-1 \O i Marquette Up pper Year County Peninsula Michiran*%* A ._ 1949 47 A34 454 1950 85 E42 642 1951 8 690 69C 1952 85 835 855 1953 2% 53* 53+ 195A 61** 6274.* 6277?* 1933 102 E46 846 1955 51 763 753 In 4'37 54 761 761 1958 86 804 804 * Bounty removed after January 51. ** Bounty off from Jan.-Jtly. Bounty restored Aus_ust l. *** No bounty on bobcats in the Lower Peninsula of Michi an. TABLE 58 WOLVES BOUNTIED FOR THE TE: -YEAP PERIOD 1949-1958 Marquette Upper Year County Peninsula Michigan* 1949 o 40 40 1950 4 28 28 1951 1 27 27 1952 l 27 27 1953 2 27 27 195 4 2 23 23 1 :1: Q 214 24 1956 1 30 30 1957 O 7 7 19-18 0 6 6 * No wolves have been taken from the Lower Peninsula since 1907. I") h) squirrel. Other species are found to a limited extent, but cannot compare in importance to those named. Table 59 gives estimates of the 1958 harvest of these major small game species with comparative data from the 1954, 1935, 1956, and 1957 seasons for the Upper Peninsula. These statistics are given for the Upper Peninsula rather than for Marquette County because after 1933. most statistics on the small game harvest were not kept by the Game Division on a county basis, but rather on a District and Regional basis. As all of the species listed in Table 59 with the exception of fox squirrel, are fo‘nd in Marquette County, these figures for the Upper Penin- sula will probably show relative abundance of the species in this area. The figures for this table were derived from mail card surveys. These post-card surveys are based on a systematic sampling of duplicate c0pies of all small game license files. Both resident and non-resident hunters are included. Basic information on the surveys shows that in 1958, there were 4,294 cards mailed out with 5,918 cards returned. This meant that the percentage of cards delivered was 94% for 1958. The per cent return of cards mailed to hunters for the years 1954 to 1958 was all over 90%. TABLE 39 SMALL GAME HARVEST FOR THE UPPER PENINSULA* 1954-1958 Species 1954 1955 1256 1252 1058 Ruffed Grouse 180,510 157,650 177,050 202,530 185,850 Snowshoe Hares 173,140 146.250 144.950 162.530 211,370 TABLE 59-Continued. Species 19:4 1955 1956 1957 1955 Ducks 51,220 55,110 50,110 55,810 102,450 Cottontails 50,510 54,750 54,550 53,750 29,520 Gray & Fox Squirrel 14,530 6,050 10,700 2,720 8,850 Geese 1,100 2,210 2,000 2,690 10, 590 Woodcock 6,620 5,)20 9,170 9,050 7,550 Raccoon 190 :70 960 190 .910 Coots 3,330 5,230 Black Squirrel 1,080 w w" *Source: Lee Eberhardt, Game Division, Preliminary Estimates of 1953 .mall Game Kill from Mail Surveys (Report 55225; Lansing: Department of Conservation, 19597— Snowshoe Hares.—-Snowshoe or var yin3 hares appear to be the most abundant small same species in Marquette County. I'ost spruce and cedar swamps contain a population of them. During 1953, the hunting season in the entire Upper Peninsula on the snowshoe hare, as well as on the cottontail rabbit, extended from October 1 to March 1. The limit was five per day with a maximum of ten in possession of hares or abbits co: bi ned. The season limit was 50 rabbits or hares. The calculated kill of snowshoe hares in Marquette County according to the Game Division's estimates for the 1953-54 season was 12,228. Marquette County was only surpassed in total snowshoe hares killed during this season by five counties in Michigan. Three of these were Upper Peninsula counties, and the remaining two were Nontmorency and Cheboygan counties in the Lower Peninsula. Cottontail Rabbit.--The cottontail rabbit is not as abundant in the Upper Peninsula as it is in tLe southern part h) 50 U1 f the State. Since the Cottontail is a farm-game aniflal, and not a forest-game species like the snowshoe hare, one would not expect to find the cottontail commonly in a county like Marquette which has about 953 of the county classed as forest land. However, in 1953, it was estimated that 858 cottontails were harvested in Marquette County; l7,&25 in the Upper Penin- sula; and 1,616,919 in Michigan. For the numbers harvested during the years 1954-1958 in the Upper Peninsula, see Table 59. The season on the cottontail is the same as that on the snowshoe hare. Game Squirre1§.--The game squirrels in Marquette County include the gray and black squirrels. The fox squirrel is ngt believed to be found in this county and only rarely in the Upper Peninsula. The gray and black squirrels are commonly found in Marquette County. In 1958, the hunting season in the Upper Peninsula on the gray and black squirrels extended from October 1 to Nov- ember 10, and allowed a limit of five squirrels per day; ten (combined) in possession; and 25 per season. The black squirrel is merely a color phase of the gray squirrel, but has been protected by law for many years in Michigan. There was an Open season on the black squirrel in 1958. During the l95u season, 1,080 black squirrels were harvested in the Upper Peninsula. Woodchuck.--The woodchuck, the largest member of the squirrel family in Michigan, is commonly found in Marquette County, especially along roadways and in farming areas. Al- though protected in the Lower Peninsula, the woodchuck has no protection in the Upper Peninsula and may be taken at any time. It is not considered an important game species in the county. During 1953, it was estimated by the Game Division that 154 woodchucks were taken in Marquette County, 5,515 in the Jpper Peninsula, and 6,740 in Michigan. Buffed Grouse.--The ruffed grouse, often called "pat" or "partridge" is the chief game bird in Marquette County. It is found throughout the county, but is most abundant in the mixed timber areas where there are second growth hardwoods mixed with evergreens and alder swamps, close to water. In 1958, the hunting season on the ru fed grouse in the Upper Peninsula extended from October 1 to November 10. The limit per day was set at five birds, the possession limit was set at ten, and the season limit at 25. The harvest of ruffed grouse for the Upper Peninsula is shown in Table 59, page 225. In 1955, the harvest of ruffed grouse in Marquette County was calculated to be 21,181. During that season Marquette County ranked fourth in the Upper Penin- sula counties, and eighth hi3hest in the state in numbers of ruffed grouse killed by hunters. Sharp-tailed Grouse and Prairie Chicken§.--Sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken are birds of the open. The prairie Chicken prefers wild grasslands. The sharp-tail likes wild grasslands with some hrush and shrubs, but not dense forest land. The sharptail is not native to Michigan but came into the western Upper Peninsula as a result of the large openings created by fires following the logging operations. The prairie chicken are rare in the Upper Peninsula and it is not known if any are still present in the county. Some of the sharp-tailed grouse are found in the south- central part of the county, where dancing grounds for these birds are located. The author and his conservation classes last checked a dancing knoll near Sands (Marquette County) in the spring of 1939 and counted 15 grouse on the booming knoll at one time on several occasions. This count compared favor- ably with the counts made by the author and his students in 1957. In 1958, the hunting season in the Upper Peninsula on the prairie chicken and on the sharp-tailed grouse extended from October 1 to November 10. The limit for these species was three per day; six combined in possession limit; and 15 per season. Spruce Grouse and Pheasant.--The spruce grouse, although found to some extent in narquette County, is a protected game bird throughout the state. It is a bird of the coniferous forest areas. The ring-necked pheasant is occasionally seen in Mar- quette County. It is protected in this county as it is in most of the Upper Peninsula. The lack of available food, such as is found on farm lands in southern Michigan, and the deep .0 2*, I". (L Cup: snows, are considered limiting factors prohibiting the estab- lishment of the pheasant in this county. Migratory Game Birds of Marquette County.--The hunting seasons and regulations for the migratory game birds, which includes the waterfowl, rails, snipe, and woodcock, are set by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. In addition to the regular small game license in Michigan, a Federal Migratory Waterfowl Stamp is required of persons over 16 for hunting ducks and geese. The 1958 season on ducks, geese, and coots extended from October 1 to December 9, and set the daily bag limits at four dudks, five geese, and ten coots. The possession bag limits was set at eight ducks, five geese, and 25 coots. There was no Open season on wood ducks, or Ross' geese, and certain restrictions were made on the number of certain species of ducks and geese. Table 59 on pagezxx.gives the kill figures on the mi- gratory game birds for the Upper Peninsula. The great increases in numbers of geese and ducks killed in 1958 should be noted. The kill of woodcock, which has a hunting season corresponding to those of the upland game birds, has remained quite constant for several years. It is known that several Species of waterfowl nest in iarquette County on the many lakes, ponds, and rivers. Many others pass through the county on their migratory routes. The headquarters of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, a 96,000 acre tract, is located about 80 miles east of the city 229 of Marquette. The Refuge is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior. It is the only Federal waterfowl refuge in the Upper Peninsula. At the Refuge, during the period 1935 to 1954, a bird list of 203 different species of birds was compiled. From this list, some of the migratory birds and their status and abundance are given in the table which follows:1 (As the western boundary of this Refuge is less than 45 miles from the east boundary of Marquette County, it might be assumed that the same migratory game birds might be found in Marquette County as have been recorded at the Refuge.) TABLE 40 SOME OF THE MIGRATORY GAME BIRDS RECORDED AT THE SENEY KATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FROM 1935-1954 Common Summer Resident Uncommon Transient Visitor Canada Goose Whistling Swan Mallard Duck Snow Goose Black Duck Blue Goose Blue-winged Teal Pintail Duck American Widgeon Lesser Scaup Wood Duck Bufflehead Ring-necked Duck Common Goldeneye Rare Transient Visitor Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Gadwall Duck American Woodcock Shoveler Duck Wilson's Snipe Canvasback Ruddy Duck Occasional Summer Resident Red-breasted Merganser Green-winged Teal Occasional Transient Visitor Redhead Back American Coot 1Department of the Interior, Birds of the Sane National Wildlife Refuge (RL-llB; Washington, D.C., 1953), 2 pp. 230 ix} ur Trapping in Marquette County Besides the bountied predators, the following mammals are the chief fur—bearers trapped in Narquette County: beaver, otter, muskrat, mink, weasel, raccoon, and skunk. The Beaver.--The beaver has been an important fur—bearer in harquette County since before our early settlers arrived. It is still one of the most important in the county. It is believed that there is a high beaver population throughout most of the northern Peninsula. With a few local exceptions, the colonies are fairly evenly distributed. In a few areas, beaver numbers are below the desirable level and they should be permitted to increase. In many of these areas, beaver benefit both fish and waterfowl populations. Because of the similar nature oi beaver and otter trap- ping techniques, an otter season concurrent with that on beavers has been the policy. The beaver and otter trapping seasons were closed in the Upper Peninsula during the years 1947, 1948, and 1949. In the Marquette County area for the years 1951 through 1957, the bag limit was set at six beavers and three otters. In 1958, in this area, the limit on beaver was raised to eight beavers. The limit of three otter remained. The length of the season in this area has usually been about three weeks. Regulations make it unlawful to set traps within 50 feet of a beaver lodge, home or hole. In the following table, the beaver trapped in Marquette County for the years 1950-1959 are given along with the totals for the Upper Peninsula and for the State: 231 TABLE 41 THE BEAVER HARVEST FOR 1950-1939 Year Marquette County Upper Peninsula M his n tals 1950 794 6.844 8.055 1951 1,570 12,859 14,871 1952 5c8 5.768 5.509 1955 1.299 14.245 17,517 1954 1,144 6,294 8,493 1955 985 15,415 16,704 1956 605 10,671 15,527 1957 501 4,516 7,674 1958 1,710 15,916 19,585 1959 1.569 13.189 The populations of beaver are believed to be quite con- sistent. The variations in numbers harvested from year to year are often due to low prices for pelts or to a poor trap- ping season due to unfavorable weather conditions. Qt£g§.--Although otters are secretive, far-ranging, and difficult to observe, some idea of their population can be obtained by analyzing a large number of reports from depart- ment personnel and reliable trappers, and by considering such facts as their life history and reproductive rate. In spite of recant relatively heavy takes, there appears to be little change in otter numbers. The trapping season and bag limits for the otter were stated with those of the beaver. In the table which follows, the otter trapped in Marquette County for the years 1950-1939 are given along with the totals for the Upper Peninsula and for Michigan. v v ' n .— A‘ C, ', I‘) TABLE A? THE OTTER HARVEST FOR 1950-1939* Year Marquette County Upper Peninsula Michigan Totals 1950 21 212 32 1931 15 203 33 1952 15 167 329 1953 39 344 533 1954 30 241 434 1955 54 378 609 1956 51 360 668 1957 22 313 S7 1958 32 549 885 1959 34 531 *Statistics on otter and other fur-bearers obtained from files of and interview with David H. Jenkins, Mammalogist, Game Division, Department of Conservation, Lansing, July, 1939. Recent (1959) statistics from Conservation office, Marquette. Muskrat.--A1though more muskrats were killed in Mar- quette County than in any other county in the Upper Peninsula in 1956, the majority of the muskrats trapped in Michigan are trapped from the Lower Peninsula counties. The 1956 and the 1957 computed muskrat kill as compiled by the Game Division, Department of Conservation, Lansing, shows that 6,210 were trapped in Marquette County in 1956 and 2,117 in 1957. Accord- ing to Game Division computers, these figures are not con- sidered to be exact, but do give relative abundance and indi- cate relative trends when taken over a period of many years. The trapping season on muskrats in Marquette County in 1958 was the same as for the remainder of the Upper Peninsula. It extended from November 1 to 30. A license was required to trap muskrats and traps could not be set within six feet of a muskrat house, hole, or home. I“ “’ c‘ ‘ .1, I” n! ‘§;§§.--The computed mink kill as compiled by the Game Division showed that 158 mink were trapped in Karquette County in 1955, and 785 in 1957. The 1958 trapping season and regulations on the min; were the same as for the muskrat. However, there was a hunt- in; season on mink in additicn to the trapping season. In 1958, in this county, the hunting season on mink was from November 1 to December 31. Weasel.--The weasel is not protected in Michigan, al- though it should be trapped only when the fur is prime. The computed weasel kill in Marquette County during the winter of 1953-5h was estimated by the Game Division to be 789. Raccoon.--In recent years the raccoon appears to be in- creasing in numbers in Marquette County as well as in the Upper Peninsula. Table 39 shows the increase in raccoons harvested in the Upper Peninsula within recent years. In Marquette County in 1953, the number of raccoons trapped was estimated to be only 77 and the number hunted to be 17. In 1958, the hunting season for the raccoon in the entire Upper Peninsula extended from October 1 to December 15. The trapping season for the same year and area extended from November 1 to 30. Skunk.--The skunk is abundant in Marquette County al- though not usually hunted nor trapped. The latest report designating harvest by counties from the Michigan Department Of Conservation showed that, in 1953, 189 skunks were killed ‘7 q, 2 l); by hunters in Karquette County. During the same year, 960 were killed in the Upper Peninsula and 8,918 in kichigan. The season on the skunk (as well as on the badger) for the year 1958 was from November 1 to January 31. (Badgers re seldom seen or taken in Marquette County. However, they have been reported occasionally.) Game Law Enforcement in Mapguette County Marquette County has a record of some of the worst crimes committed in the history of game law enforcement. A few of the most notorious will be briefly mentioned. On September 29, 1926, Arvid Erickson and Emil Skoglund, two deputy game wardens for the Conservation Department were shot by a game law violator, after being apprehended in the Gwinn District of Marquette County. Hundreds of people searched for these officers for two weeks without finding them. Finally, an ex-convict, Roy Nunn, Was identified with the crime and was arrested. Eight days after his arrest, Kuhn went with the officers to the scene of the crime in a search for the bodies. He finally directed them to the spot where he had placed their bodies in Lake Superior. One of the officers was shot in the back of the head, and the other in the chin and neck. The crime was an atrocious one. Two men were killed outright by a man who had never seen them before the day of the crime. Nunn was con- Victed in Marquette on December 13, 1926 of murder in the 7r- ...} \ 2 first degree and sentenced to life in prison.1 Another notorious case occurred on October 20, 1936 when conservation officer Andrew Schmeltz was murdered. The slaying occurred in Hegaunee Township, Marquette County, a few miles north of Negaunee on the Carp River. Parts of his body were found the next day by members of a searching party. On October 23, State Police took Raymond Kivela, age 27, into custody. Kivela, in a confession to the County Prosecutor, stated he killed Schmeltz about 11 A.M. on October 20. Schmeltz had been investigating a report of illegal trapping and met Kivela along the trail carrying a .22 rifle without a permit. In the process of arresting him, Kivela struck the officer and knocked him to his knees, and fired two shots into his chest. He then dragged the body about 157 feet to the edge of a swamp. He returned home and purchased 50 pounds of dynamite for the purpose of disposing of the body. That night, he returned to the swamp and set off 70 sticks of dynamite on the body of the officer. Kivela was sentenced to life in prison for first degree murder on December 14, 1936.2 in Current Game Law Viclations.--At present, Marquette County is located in District three for purposes of adminis- tration by the Michigan Department of Conservation. District three includes, besides Marquette County, Delta County and the west half of Alger County. ....— lSummarized from the files of Field Administration Div- ision, Department of Conservation, Marquette, Michigan. 2Ibid. ’3 5" :75. C. / ~/ According to John Chriske, District 5 Supervisor, Field Administration Division, Escanaba, the number of cases of game law violations in this district for the years 1948 through 1957 have averaged 515. (Of this total, about 97 are handled in Marquette County courts.)l In breaking down the average as to type of cases of game law violations, Chriske gives the following percentages: Deer ------ ---- 35% Gun ----------- 25% License ----—-- 14% Inland Fish --- 10% Commercial Fish 5t Trapping ------ 3% Fire ---------- 2% Trespass ------ 1% Miscellaneous - 4% 165% Mghitat I:prcvenent in Marquette County One of the basic principles of game management is that proper habitat is necessary for the existence of'a game species. During the past one hundred years, northern Michigan has witnessed drastic changes from vast areas of primeval forest where deer, grouse and rabbits were scarce, to the more favor- able situation for wildlife, of areas containing a great variation of openings, brushy areas, seedlings and saplings characteristic of the young forest. From this transformation it was learned that the young stage in the development of a forest is the most productive of our native game species. Twenty years or more of experimentation in habitat work lLetter from John Chriske, District Supervisor, Field Administration Division, Department of Conservation, Escanaba, July 7! 1953 o 237 in northern Michigan has shown that cuttings, tree and shrub planting, herbiciie spraying, and controlled burning are some of the tools that can be used to improve habitat. Of these, cutting is by far the best. Cutting_of Timber--A Management Practice.--As woodland areas mature, the utilization of merchantable timber will steadily gain in importance. The logging of an area is the cheapest and, at the same time, one of the most effective ways to make an area more productive of game. Most mature trees, except mast-producing Species and den trees, do very little for game, but the brush and sprouts that result from a logging operation produce optimum conditions for wildlife. Since 1940, the Game Division has carried on wildlife habitat improvement cuttings through timber sales on the state lands in northern Michigan, including Marquette County. An example is the deeryard cuttings made in deer yarding areas. Deeryard cuttings are defined as any winter logging activity within the boundary of a deeryard or within one mile of the deeryard.1 Controlled Burningg-A Management Practice.--Controlled burning for the purpose of maintaining openings and control- ling the size and density of brushy areas is considered a use- ful tool in game management. It is about the best tool for improving the habitat for such species as the sharp-tailed 1Game Division, Wildlife Habitat Improvement (Report No. 2187; Lansing: Department of Conservation, 1958), p.3. J or, L/ {A 5 grouse. Burning in poor aspen stands also produces sprouts for deer. Controlled burning has been carried on in Marquette County. In the spring of 1957. in Section 31, Town 46 North, Range 27 West, 250 acres were burned to improve sharp-tailed 1 Another 400 acres of controlled burning is grouse habitat. proposed in Karquette County in Sections 9 and 10, Town A} North, Range 25%. Herbicide gpraying--A Management Practice.--Herbicide spraying is done to create sharp-tailed grouse habitat by killing a fairly well-stocked area of poor quality aspen. Sprouts grow up from the top-killed trees and the deer may feed where practically no browse was available before. Thinning and clearing with herbicides was done in Mar- quette County by the aerial spraying of 6&0 acres in Town 43 North, Range 25 West.2 This spraying was done for sharp- tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, and other wildlife. Flooding Project-~A Management Practice.--On the whole wildlife flooding projects in Michigan have produced spectac- ular results. Because of careful selection of sites to be flooded, the resulting habitat has proven attractive to breed- ing ducks, and in nearly all cases have been occupied almost immediately after development. 1Department of Conservation, Nineteenth Biennial Report (Lansing: 1957-1958), p.146. 2Interview with Ben C. Jenkins, Habitat Management Specialist, Game Division, Department of Conservation, Lansing, July, 1958. R) \ A One Pittman-Robertson flooding project was completed in Marquette County in 1953 at a cost of $10,473.30. It was the Mud Lake Flooding Project near Kawbawgam Lake. Here 190 acres were flooded for waterfowl, fur-bearing animals, and other wildlife.1 Herbaceous Seeding--A Management Practice.--Herbaceous seeding in the development of food patches for geese was being carried on in 1958 and 1939 on six acres in Section 9 and 10, Town 43 North, Range 25 West, in Marquette County.2 The Soil Bank Program and Game Management.--Recently, the Department of Conservation has extended its cooperation with the Conservation Reserve phase of the Soil Bank Program in an effort to encourage active cooperation on the part of landowners in the Fish and Wildlife phases under this Federal Act. It is hoped that this program will stimulate an active interest among the farmers of all counties of the state in helping to conserve the wildlife resources commonly found on farm lands. Many game management practices including food plots, meadow seeding, and tree and shrub plantings are cost- 3 shared by the Federal Government. (The Soil Bank program in Marquette County is further discussed along with the section 1Interview with M. L. Petoskey, Pittman-Robertson Co- ordinator, Game Division, Department of Conservation, Lansiig, July, 1958 o 21bid. 3Game Management, Wildlife Habitat Improvement (Report T . ho. 2187), OpoC1to, p01 '0 a 0 E2- L) on agriculture.) Conclusion.--Wildlife on the farm brings enjoyment and a sense of satisfacti n to those who have expended time and effort to perpetuate a continuous supply. It is hoped that habitat improvement practices will be continued to aid in maintaining or increasing the populations of desired wildlife. XIV. THE RECREATIONAL RESOURCES OF MARQUETTE COUNTY The Need for Recreation Human beings represent both a major resource and the reason for using other resources wisely. The chief reason for conserving, developing and using our natural resources is to better safeguard the continued advancement of the greatest resource of all--humanity. America has been a leader in creating time-reducing, labor-saving, or otherwise desirable devices for the comfort, convenience or enjoyment of its people. All of these cultural advances-ohigher incomes, faster travel, and more leisure time-~have given people more time for recreation. Today, recreation is accepted as a basic requirement of mankind. Outdoor recreational resources improve the bodies of persons who enjoy them, thereby fitting such persons for greater application to their work and more constructive cit- izenship generally. Types of Outdoor Recreation The American people, in great numbers, have always sought recreation in the outdoors--in the fields and woods, in the forests, along streams, and on the lakes. Some people get their recreation from viewing beautiful scenery, others from nature study, or from exploring wilderness. Hunting, fishing, 241 I A grid skiing, camping, picnicking, and many other forms of outdoor recreation are enjoyed wherever condi ions favor then. A nation-wide survey completed before World War II showed that touring and sightseeing, fishing, picnicking, and swim- ming were the most popular outdoor American pastimes. Camping, 1‘hiking, boating, nature study, sports and games, and horseback riding stood high in popularity. Hunting, photography, arts and crafts, sketching and painting, and other interest also 1 (n brought zany enthusiasts to the outdoors. laygrounds, amusement parks, golf courses, swimming pools, athletic fields and other constructed recreational facilities also serve for the recreation of many. Earguette County's Recreational Facilities Marquette County, containing 1,178,240 acres of scenic land, with 68 miles of shoreline on Lake Superior, having with- in its borders 833 inland lakes, and some 1,906 miles of rivers and streams, certainly offers a great opportunity for all of the forms of outdoor recreation previously mentioned. The Waterfalls of Marggette County.--One of the many scenic attractions enjoyed by many are waterfalls. There are over 150 waterfalls in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Of this number, Marquette County has 26. One of these, the Laughing Whitefish Falls, a series of cascades on Laughing Whitefish River, has a total drop of nearly 100 feet. At lRuben L. Parson, Conservation erican Resources (Engle- Wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 195 , p. 235. n b \rJ present, this area is proposed as a future State Park, and an attempt is being made to acquire more land near the falls to supplement the property given to the state by Celotex Corpor- ation. The list of the falls found in Marquette County follow: TABLE 43 THE WATERFALLS OF KARQUETTE COUNTY Falls River Location g. I. B. Upper Chocolay 2 45N 24W -NW of Carlshend Frohling Silver Lead Cr. 29 46W 24W -NE of Gwinn Little Boney Escanaba 34 AAN 25W - S of Gwinn First Escanaba 21 45N 25W - at Gwinn Second Esc. E. Branch 45W 25W - near Gwinn Switzer Esc. E. Branch 10 ASN 25W - N. of Gwinn Jeell Esc. E. Branch 28 46W 25W - N. of Gwinn Cataract Escanaba 11 45M 26W - NW of Princeton Escanaba Escanaba 30 46M 26W - NW of Princeton Warner Warner Creek Bl 47K 26W - S. of Negaunee Ely Ely Creek 47M 27W ~ S. of Ishpeming White City Black River 17 46M 27W - S. of Ishpeming Black River Black River 10 46N 28W - SW of Ishpeming Caps. Cr. Falls Caps Creek 5 45M 29W - S. of Republic Trout Creek Trout Creek 13 46M 30W - SW of Republic Morgan Creek Morgan Creek 33 ASN 25W - SW of Marquette Morgan Creek Morgan Creek 30 48M 25W - SW of Marquette Carp River Carp River 29 ABN 26W - W. of Marquette Reany Reany River ABM 26W - NW of Marquette Big Garlic Garlic 5 49N 26W - NW of Iarquette Yellow Dog Yellow Dog 16 SON 27W - NW of Marquette Slate Yellow Dog 21 SON 28W - NW of Marquette Alder Alder Creek 27 SON 28W - NW of Marquette Ives Outlet Ives Lake 3A 52M 28W - S. of Big Bay Mountain Stream Mountain Stream 29 52M 28W - NW of Big Bay Cliff Cliff 10 51W 29W ~ W. of Big Bay Peshekee Peshekee Source: Upper Peninsula Development Bureau, U er Penin- sula Waterfalls (Marquette: Mimeographed 7 page report}, p. 6-7. The Sport of Hunting.--With the thousands of acres of state-owned public hunting grounds and the many additional acres of private lands upon which there are few or no hunting restrictions, Marquette County is an ideal area for hunting, trapping, and enjoying the many forms of wildlife that abound in the county. The sales of hunting licenses will attest to the popularity of this sport. The Sport of Fishing.--The sport of fishing in Marquette County includes deep-sea trolling on Lake Superior, as well as fishing on the inland lakes and streams. Marquette County is fortunate in having 38 public fish- ing sites. Of these 38, nine are improved to accommodate campers. (Figure 21 on the following page will help locate these recreational sites.) These improved fishing sites have been developed to facilitate the placing of a boat in the water, provide parking, camping, and sanitary facilities. Camping and fishing are also available at the three State Forest Campgrounds, namely on Anderson Lake, on the Escanaba River, and on Little Lake. Their locations are in- dicated on Figure 21. The facilities at the State Forest campsites include water, toilets, stoves and tables. The State Park in Marquette County.--For those that like to go camping, swimming, and boating, in addition to fishing and other outdoor sports, at one spot, Marquette County has a State Park, It is Van Riper State Park. It is located two miles west of Champion and twenty miles west of Ishpeming on U.S. Al. The park contains 840 acres with one-half mile of frontage on the east end of Lake Michigamme, and one and one- half miles of frontage on the Peshekee River. The facilities I -<-"IZCOO DODZUDW -<-|ZCOO 203- 245 Figure 21 Improved Camping sites Huron , 232%.,” and Other Points of Interest “32”“ “3* AR TT 0 TY mm.ne , M QUE E C UN -'-r* -*-fku'c.s :rk . Marq tte IV1|(3F1I(3l\fV ; Count " Park 3’6 8’" Scale of Miles j 6 3 O 5 "T __-., H' W —"'—*_ i[“' __- H4..-" 4 - y .._ _.[-_ - S I ! Sugar Loa ‘ . _- .1, __ __ e ¥9¥9t§19-_‘r98qu0 Isle 1 Park I 3 Repes mold E“ . i A Mine 4% Animal/E NE 3 NEGAUNEE W 1 § ISHPEC/VDINGA STATlEAFISH Q 1 I .' Suiqide Hill . HAfiCHERY coolay : ! ; _ L hmr i — .. -. i ..-i . _ .1, m _ .m. .,1-_i__ei.iiii_e_iv -.. ._ Me. ___i..-- --.- _.-_i-_i.__. .. .3 i [Q : t A REPUBLM? ? ‘L ) Swanzylake ("1150“ Lake (g. 7 i i L a ‘\ Sporlegki gnome t “—" ' ‘ * *“*it"wm“"i"“ ”rm“ -....-_. ‘W \ Lake _..i__-_-_ '1‘. ‘ " 7R i Gwinn Tourist Par Littl k I and I La 6 C X M Lakes ' Shag “x i d: x3888 ? (t L“- 7 ..__._»-_-.._*Je_-_ «y 306 a on 1- .. —, - -1 u 'R 30 w .. N , DICKINSON COUNTY Anderson Lake -T Lake‘fll II l Y Eecanaba r“ _ -mpwflivsriw- _ , _ L. "stw ' o X Improved Public Fishing.Sites ' ‘ E ti _ is y i L I State Forest Campground: i T N . A A Other Points of Interest T42 N ,j j C ' MENOMINEE : COUNTY at this park include excellent swimming and picnic facilities, electrical service for campers, running water, and bathhouse. Camping is increasing to the capacity of the park. The fig- ures for 1958 show the attendance at Van Riper to have been 132,150, and 2,023 camps. According to Regional Parks Supervisor Glenn Gregg, it is planned that additional land will be secured in the future. Also, the present county road through the park will be re- routed out of the heavy use area, and additional campground and picnic areas will be developed. A new parking lot is now under develOpment.l County_and City Parksgin Marguette County.--Besides the State Park, the county has a park system, as well as city parks in Marquette, Ishpeming and Negaunee. The county parks include: Perkins Park, also known as the Marquette County Park, located at Big Bay; and the Gwinn Tourist Park. There is also a park at Republic. At these parks, camping is permitted. Camping is also permitted in the Marquette Tourist Park, a city park in Marquette. As an example of some of the recreation areas provided by the city of Marquette, the Marquette Planning Board, in 1951, listed the following facilities, along with the size of the area:2 —‘ 1Letter from Glenn C. Gregg, Regional Parks Supervisor, Department of Conservation, Marquette, Michigan, July 8, 1958. 2Marquette Planning Board, Marquette. Michigan, City 247 Athletic Field ------- 9.62 acres Quarry Pond --------~- 1:.?0 Harlow Park ---------- 4.51 " Shiras Park ---- ------ 23,35 Hurley Field --------- 1.98 " Marquette Tourist Park 51.15 Lakeside Park -------- 1.12 ” Williams Park -------- 3.24 Palestra - ------------ 2.75 " Ski Tow Area ---- ----- 2.08 Presque Isle Park -- 209.10 " Kirlin Hill ~--------- 80.00 Total - $02.70 Acres Einter Recreational Facilities in Marquette County.-- Marquette County is a good example of what is meant by the claim that Michigan is an all-year playground. At Ishpeming, the winter sport enthusiasts will find a ZOO-acre winter play- ground. Here is found superb ski hills with tow, slalom runs, and toboggan slides. It was at Ishpeming in 1887, that a group of Swedish and Norwegian immigrants organized the Norden Ski Club, believed to be the first ski club in Michigan. The first Ishpeming ski tournament was held in that year. It was at Ishpeming on February 21, 1904, that the National Ski Associa- tion was founded. In 1954, in Ishpeming, the National Ski Association dedicated the National Ski Museum and Ski Hall of Fame. In this building is kept the National trophies, plaques, publications on skiing, both foreign and American, and relics and displays of skiing equipment. The nationally famous Suicide Hill is located on Cliffs Drive, midway between the cities of Ishpeming and Negaunee. Here each year, outstanding ski Jumpers from throughout the nation and world compete. The ski Jump, built in 1925, has a vertical height of 280 feet and a length of 860 feet. The ,A A .l .4 C‘f’xg r-v I original slide had a gap of .8 feet between the take-off and the landing hil , earning for it the name of ”Suicide Hill". This gap was later filled in to avoid accidents. Just south of Marquette on highway 553 is located the Cliffs ski area. A 1550-foot Constam T-Ear and three rope tows add to the skiing pleasure on these hills. Cliffs Ridge offers hills for the expert or beginner. "Suicide Run" for experts is one mile long. Also for experts is the "Rocket Run", 1600 feet long, and the "Chute", 2600 feet long. The "Contour" is a 2800 feet long hill for the intermediate skier, and the "Ridge Run", 3600 feet long, for the novice skier. There are also cross-country trails, and a beginners area. Additional_R§cent Developments.-—Besides the many forms of recreation possible in Marquette County, some new tourist attractions were developed in the county for the summer of 1959. One of these was the Ropes Gold Mine development, about five miles north of Ishpeming. This abandoned mine was oper- ated from 1883 to 1897 and produced about $650,000 worth of gold in that period. After the mine was closed, about $160,000 worth of gold was recovered from the tailings. A guided tour of this mine is now offered. Surface tours of iron mines in Ishpeming and Negaunee, at the Mather "A" and "B" shafts were conducted.during the summer of 1959. Another tourist attraction, new in 1959, was the Mount Marquette scenic drive, just south of Marquette. The scenic drive leads to the crest of Mt. Mesnard--about 1,125 feet 249 17. The Cliffs Ridge Ski Area south of Marquette. \' A ..6 m in“ 18. A lSSO-foot Constam T—Bar adds to skiing pleasure, above sea level. flare one can .et a panoramic view of the city of Marquette, of numerous hills and vs lava and nany \. of" werior's shore. .5 miles of Lake Su ’( These develOpments are indicative of a growing awareness in this county of the importance of the tourist trade and of recreation to meet the needs of the vacationers. O ‘thure Recreati(gal;PrOSpect.--Legislation before the United States Congress in July, 1959, proposes the federal acquisition of ten ocean and lake shore recreation lands. They would be called national shore areas. Included, in these ten, are 90,000 acres of the Huron Mountains in northern Mar- quette County, and 10,,000 acres of the P ctured Rocks-Grand Sable Dunes area in Alger County--3ust east of Marquette County. Should the Huron Mountains area become a part of the National Park Service, it would open up much of the nearly inaccessible, rugged, Huron Mountains wilderness. The Huron Mountains has peaks ranging in height from 1,800 to 2,000 feet above sea level. These mountains form the second highest land area in Michigan and are only exceeded by the Porcupine Moun- tains in Ontonagon County. Acquisition of the Hurons area would be a difficult task since most of the land is in private ownership. The Huron Mountain Club is the largest development there. Its holdings cover 26,000 acres and contain lodg s erected by the small group of rich executives who belong to the organization. The Ives Lake Resort, northwest of Big Bay, is the only resort in this huge area that is open to the public. XV. CONSERVATION EDUCATION IN MARQUETTE COUNTY Emphasis on Conservation Education One of the major promises for a successful future for Marquette County lies in the careful management and wise use of its natural resources. Most conservation authorities are agreed that the only hOpe of getting people to practice wise use management of resources is through effective conservation education. Citizens of Marquette County have been aware of this to a great extent. The various conservation agencies have long stressed the importance of conservation education and have endeavored to insist that their employees give high priority to requests for assistance in conservation education lectures, demonstrations, field trips, and outdoor education programs, especially when teacher groups were involved. Radio and television programs have been devoted to con- servation education as well as to other phases of conservation. A weekly television program is currently being sponsored by the Michigan Department of Conservation headquarters in Mar- quette. The local daily newspaper, The Mining Journal, has carried an outstanding weekly feature entitled "Outdoor Page", edited by Kenneth Lowe. This "Outdoor Page" has brought acclaim to the editor by winning an award for having the best outdoor page 251 my: CJQ of the State newspapers. Besides the Outdoor Page, numerous conservation articles and editorials emphasize conservation education. Several of the communities in Marquette County have organized conservation or sportsmens' clubs and many are very active in conservation affairs. Scout groups, A-H clubs, extension clubs and other groups have often devoted much time and effort to conservation activ- ities and the aCQUiFing of conservation knowledge, Conservation Education in the Schools Northern Michigan College, Marguette.-~The need for teachers capable of teaching conservation as a course and of integrating conservation into the various classes has been partially met by Northern Michigan College. A student at this college, under the General Curriculum orsunder a teaching curriculum, may obtain a major_or a minor in the field of conservation. Also, two-year pre-professional programs in conservation, forestry, and agriculture are offer- ed here. Prior to 1951, Northern Michigan College has required that all candidates for the Secondary Teachers Provisional Certificate take at least one course of three-semester hours credit in conservation. (This condition has been waived for students who have taken forty or more semester hours of science credits.) Many students in the elementary curriculum have elected conservation as a course to fulfill their science (D requirem nt. However, there is decidedly a need nere for curriculum revision in order to take a course in conservation and still complete their rigid course requirements in four years. Northern has been fortunate in obtaining the Kunuscong Conservation Laboratory, near Pickford in Chippewa County, where they have conducted field courses in conservation for teachers since 1947. This has provided an opportunity for many teachers who lacked training in conservation to acquire such knowledge. Pilot School_in Conservation Education.--The Graveraet High School in Marquette is one of two high schools in the U,per Peninsula of Michigan chosen to participate in a state- wide pilot project in conservation education. The other is Sault Ste. Marie. This pilot project is sponsored by the Michigan Department of Public Instruction in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Conservation and other agencies and colleges. Through faculty committees, a system of conservation teaching, especially through the integration of conservation into the various grades and courses, is formulated and later tried in the classrooms. How conservation education is being integrated, or woven, into studies in various areas in the Marquette Public School system was graphically demonstrated recently in a project of the eleventh grade United States history classes at Graveraet High School. A mock television set was used to illustrate the role of natural resources in American history. Class members m UI 5;“ also prepared papers in which the relationship between conser- vation and history was brought out. Reaction of pupils to the project was enthusiastic. As 11 ‘- was quoted in :he fining Journal,l one student said: "I think our conservation project was very worthwhile to the entire student-teacher body as it showed that conservation can be taught in any class. It also proved that students are inter- ested in conservation, even though they don't actually take the subject in school." Another student was quoted as saying: "By linking conservation with history, we see the mistakes made in the past and what needs to be done in the future. What we do now to further conservation is important, as it will be history itself tomorrow. If records had not been kept to illustrate the waste of our natural resources, I am sure that little would be done today to protect them. I am sure that anyone who has come in contact with parts of our conservation projects will be far more conservation-conscious in the future." Besides the emphasis on the integration of conservation, Graveraet High School is the only school in the Upper Peninsula that offers three or more courses of conservation as regular high school courses. It also offers an extensive firearm safety program each fall to any interested student and is required of those that plan to hunt deer. Schools of Marquette County Rated.--Rodney Smith, Conser- vation Education Consultant for the Michigan Department of l"History, Conservation Studies Integrated in Graveraet Classes," The Mining Journal, Marquette, April 17, 1959. (1.1”) (1) Conservation, Marquett , visit (.0 and surveys all of the schools of the Upper Peninsula (as the author did as Conservation Education Consultant for the six-year period 1949-1955.) In 1958, Mr. Smith rated the schools of the Upper Peninsula as to their conservation education accomplishments. County schools rated as follows for the year 1957-1958: TABLE 44 Marquette CONSERVATION EDUCATION IN THE SCHOOLS OF MARQUETTE COUNTYl Course Marquette Countijchool High School Champion (Humboldt Twsp.)------------------ Fair Fair Gwinn (Forsyth Twsp.)---------- Yes ------- Fair Fair Ishpeming High School---------------------- Good Good Marquette: Bishop Baraga High School--------------- Fair Good Graveraet High School------- Yes ------- Excellent Excellent J. D. Pierce High School---------------- Good Good Michigamme High School -------- ------------- Fair Fair National Mine High School--- ----- - -------- - Good Good Negaunee High School----------------------- Fair Good Republic High School------------ ----- - ----- Fair Fair St. Paul's (N gaunee)---------------------- Fair Good EEEEEEXELEQB Integration Elementary Secondary 1Source: Rodney Smith, School Visits, U.P.. 1957-58. Besides the acquiring of knowledge regarding the natural resources and their wise use, often many conservation problems can be solved through conservation education in the schools. For example, vandalism in parks can be minimized and more co- Operative attitudes toward conservation agencies and toward research can be developed. This has been evidenced in Mar- quette County by letters to the editor of the local newspaper from students expressing a more cooperative view of current m 1‘5] 0\ conservation measures. 0 h m (J l O 0 .nd Community Forests Avw P The fOllO‘v‘Ii. -' m chool and community forests were recorded 0'} P U1; for Marquette County, about 1950, in the office of Roy Shog, Extension Forester, Michigan State Uiiversity Extension Service, Marquette: 1. School Forests. Forsyth Township Schools (Gwinn)--- 200 acres Humboldt Schools (Champion)-------- 40 acres Ishpeming Schools--------—--------- A0 acres Marquette Public Schools----------- 80 acres Michigamme Public School-~--------- 40 acres National Mine Hig. School----—----- ho acres Kegaunee High School---------~----- 52 acres North Lake School------------------ 40 acres Republic High School-----------~--- A acres Richland Township School (Palmer)-- 40 acres 2. Community Forests. Marquette Boy Scouts--------------- 20 acres Karquette, City of--------—-------- 240 acres Marquette County Road Commission--- 14,200 acres West Branch Township--------------- 80 acres Republic Township------------------ 74 acres County of Marquette---------------- 7,297 acres The above acreages in school and community forests in Marquette County is an indication of the interest in forest mahagement in the county. As poor forest management on private forests and on small woodland acreages is an area that needs attention, these school and community forests should serve as a good example of what should be done on private forest lands. Some of these forests listed above are currently used for various forestry and conservation practices other than just the planting of seedling trees. "1:"? J—at Problems in Conservation Education A problem in conservation education is to have a people well-informed concerning the many phases of conservation, but especially in those areas of greatest concern to the welfare of the immediate community. This could be brought about through more active adult education programs in conservation, plus a vigorous program of conservation education in the schools and colleges of the State. A major problem in conservation education seems to be the lack of understanding by so many educators of the import- ance of conservation and of the necessity of such training in the schools. As an example, the college located in Marquette County has many on its faculty staff, including some in admin- istrative roles, that either do not know enough about conser- vation education to realize its importance or else do nothing about their obligation. Curriculum requirements for teachers have been rigidly set allowing little freedom for students to elect a course in conservation. If the present autocratic system of curriculum requirements does not evolve into a more democratic system, or if conservation is not added to this autocratic system as a requirement, future teachers will grad- uate as unprepared to cope with the problem of conservation education as have the teachers of the last few decades. It is hoped that those in Curriculum Committees and in Administrative positions will not overlook their obligations of seeing that all teachers are adequately trained in this important phase of learning. F0 \H (\L} ly in the area of tourist H 1 Proper land use, especia tions, has been gaining momentum in Marquette County, but more is desired in this area in order to further the economic stability of the county. he solution to this prob- lem, besides the training in schools, is primarily one of adult education with the assistance of Chambers of Commerce, and the Upper Peninsula Development Bureau. XVI. SUMKARY, CCECLUSIONS, AND FUTURE CUTLOOK n 7'. DUTY-g. a Marquette County, located in the north-central part of the Northern Peninsula of Michigan, is Nichigan's largest county. It contains 1,841 square miles with sixty-eight miles of shoreline on Lake Superior. The general elevation of the eastern part of Karquette C unty ranges from 602 to 1,150 f at shove sea level. This part is underlain by sandstone and limestone. Host of the western part of the county is situated on elevations ranging from 1,300 to 2,000 feet above sea level. This western part is composed for the most part of igneous and metamorphosed pre-Cambrian rocks. The entire area was covered.durinj the Pleistocene Aye by ice sheets which left a heterogeneous mantle of rocky drift of various thicknesses and composition. The area is essentially a part of a deeply dissected plateau high- land featured by rock Pnobs, deep valleys filled with glacial debris, high sandy hills, and sand plains, all of which contain many lakes and swamps. Marquette County was laid out by the Legislature in 1943 and its rich iron ore deposits were discovered the follow- ing year near Kegaunee. Settlement followed promptly. Marquette County had a population of 47,654 people as Of April 1, 1950 (U.S. Btreau of Census). The city of 259 1K 26%? Marquette is the county seat and the largest city of the county. It had a pOpulation of 17,202 in 1950. Marquette has two of the longest iron ore docks in America from which vast quan- tities of iron ore are shipped. Ishpeming and Negaunee are the other incorporated cities of the county. Both are centers of the iron mining industry. Michigamme, Republic, Champion, Gwinn, Humboldt, National Mine, Palmer, North Lake, and Green- wood are or were mining locations in the county. Marquette County is bountifully endowed with natural resources, particularly in iron, timber, water, fish, wildlife, and recreational features which attract tourists. Within its borders are found more inland lakes (835) and more miles of stream (1,906) than are found in any other county in Michigan. Marquette County's water resources are important today, but will become increasingly valuable. The abundant supply of water for industrial purposes represents one of the county's principal long-range attractions for industry. Over ninety per cent of its lands are in forest areas. This provides forest products and considerable areas for wild- life production. During recent years, wildlife improvement has become one of the major programs of the Game Division. The various habitat improvement programs in Marquette County in- clude tree and shrub planting for wildlife, improvement cut- tings, controlled burning, herbicide spraying, disking and flooding projects. Iron ore provides the main source of income in the county. More than 275 million long tons of ore have been produced on 261 the Marquette Range. The yearly production is approximately five million tons of ore valued at $28,000,000. The Future of thebIron Ore Industpy It is believed that the iron ore reserves in this county are sufficient for many decades of continued mining activity. Extensive research on the beneficiation of low grade iron ores has been develOped to the extent that beneficiation plants now are in production. Harry Hardenberg, Mining Geologist for the Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Conservation, estimated the 1958 iron ore reserve of Michigan to be 150,091,140 tons, a value of $93,912,400.1 In addition, it has been estimated that Michigan has some two billion tons of low grade iron ore reserves. Some of these reserves are of the type now being utilized; others cannot now be economically processed by known methods. That portion of the total amount of iron formation s~which is economically concentratable today is relatively small. However, through continued research in the field of beneficia- tion, there is the possibility in the future that methods will be improved so that this vast formation may also be mined as economic iron ores. Competition from foreign ores, many of which are of higher grade than Michigan ores, offers a constant threat to the continued economy of the iron ore industry. The nation's # 1H. J. Hardenberg, and R. Reed, General Statistics Cover- lBF Costs and Production of Michigan Iron Mines, Lansing: Department of Conservation, 1957, Table VIII. '0 u \ '2 steel industry consumed more than 33 million tons of foreign ores in 1957, contrasted to less than a fifth of that amount imported just a few years ago. If the mining industry is to survive all mining costs must be kept to a minimum and it must be prepared to supply the steel industry with high quality products. Continued exploration and research by the iron mining companies is necessary to keep the industry in a strong competitive position. The Outlook for Agriculture Agriculture is rather general in the county. Much of the land is not suited to intensive agriculture because of the topography, sandy soils and the short growing season. The average length of the growing season in Marquette County is 113 days. Where the soils are adapted, good production of agricultural crops results. The principal agricultural enter- prises are dairying and potatoes. As climatic conditions limit the type of crops which can be successfully grown, no great variation in crops grown has occurred over a period of years. The 1390 census reported hay, oats, and potatoes as the principal crops. The 1950 census showed the same crops to be the principal ones grown. The climate and soil in several sections of the county are excellent for the growth of high grade potatoes. The agricultural soils in general are quite acid in the county. This is a desirable condition for the production of white skinned potatoes. The Ebasco report suggested: "There would seem to be an opportunity to publicize Upper Peninsula potatoes I J .‘T\ K)! in the same manner that Idaho and Maine potatoes have been. Upper Peninsula potatoes are claimed to be sweeter in flavor than others, making them particularly desirable for potato chips--an adYafiia“ n1 (N. \’ e not commonly promoted. The climate of Marquette County is also suited to straw- berry and raspberry production, especially near the Lake Super- ior shores. The amounts produced in the county at present are not sufficient to satisfy local consumption demands. Farm authorities in the Northern Peninsula believe that dairying is the type of farming that has the greatest commercial potential. About eighty per cent of the eggs and poultry meat are imported at the present time. In some sections of the county there is much low-grade, cleared farm land formerly devoted to farming, which is now abandoned. The best use for this land is probably for forestry and wildlife purposes. Part-time farming and forest tree farm- ing are becoming more important in the county. The Outlook for Forestry Marquette County is the most heavily forested of any of the state's eighty-three counties. More than 95 per cent of the county is considered forest land. Of this forest area, commercial forest land occupies 1,121,300 acres. The main problem in forestry in Marquette COunty and in the Upper Peninsula is the lack of markets. Upper Michigan 1Ebasco Report, op. cit., p.69. I o < 3x 1} sends about 633 of its pulpwood into Wisconsin for manufacture. West Coast and Southern pulpwoods are now displacing some Upper Peninsula pulpwood. The Upper Peninsula, unable to market all its pulpwood, is now watching its surplus grow. According to Harold Nygren, Supervisor, Upper Michigan National Forests, the marketing problem of Upper Michigan for- ests is too much wood of the wrong species. As an example, the most plentiful product is aspen pulpwood. The annual cut of this product is only about one-third the amount that should be cut. Local mills use only a small amount of aspen and the Wisconsin mills have plenty of aspen close by. If the demand for forest products of all kinds were greater in the Upper Peninsula, forest practices in this area would improve. In- vestment of capital in forest improvement is good business only when the demand for forest products justifies the investment. The market for forest products in the Upper Peninsula has not reached this point yet.2 What are needed most, in this area, are better markets for inferior species and logs. Before good quality wood can be grown, poor timber must be cut. E. L. Demmon, U.S. Forest Service, recommends that all forestry operations should be integrated to cut down waste and to obtain fuller utilization of all material harvested. In- dustry should promote good forestry practices on all forest lands, regardless of ownership. All should c00perate to assure _A ‘ * 1W. Paul Strassmann, Economic Growth in Northern Michigan, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1959. 2Harold Mygren, Supervisor, Upper Michigan National Forests, The Mining Journal, Marquette, August 12, 1959. A : at.) ,) that the forest resource is utilized conservatively and to the greatest good.1 The Outlook 29? the Tourigtand Resort_lndustry The tourist and resort industry is rapidly becoming one of the major sources of income in the county. The climate and scenic attractions of the county are becoming better known, and Marquette County welcomes an increasing number of vacation- ists each year providing services for the tourists, hunters, fishermen, and winter sports enthusiasts. With the construction of the Mackinac Bridge completed, it is expected that the tour- ist trade will continue to increase. One of the most comprehensive recent studies of the pros- pects for the growth of the Upper Peninsula was made by w. Paul Strassmann of Michigan State University.2 He believes that tourism is more profitable for Northern Michigan than either mining, manufacturing or agriculture. He believes that the same factors that discourage intensive agriculture and indus- trialization, should make Northern Michigan attractive to people seeking vacations. Strassmann claims: "People do not travel to Northern Michigan to eat cherry pies, to sleep in motels or to buy what the people of the north have to sell. They mainly come to enjoy what is freely available: cool air, forest scenery, blue water. It is the supply of these freely _ 1E. L. Demmon, Forest Situation in the Lake States, Station Paper No. 13: Lake States Forest Experiment Station, Forest Ser- vlce, U.S. Department of Aariculture, Sept., 1949, p. 6. 2w. Paul Strassmann, Economic Growth in_Northern Michigan, 0p. cit. (2/27 59). - P) ’ [A "r" CC'\.:' available attractions which must be maintained, in terms of conservation and access, if sales of other goods are to rise."1 For boating, fishing and swimming, new lands must be acquired if the public is to enjoy remote shores made accessible by new highways. If supply does not keep up with demand, if tourists get less for their money in Michigan, they will go elsewhere. Future Expressways and Tourigm An expanded resort area penetration will result from the completion of an expressway-type highway from Michigan's south- ern border to Sault Ste. Marie, according to a preliminary report submitted by Dr. Frank Squitt, Michigan State Univer- sity professor, to the Michigan Good Roads Federation.2 Suggitt pointed out that the eXpressway and expressway connections will permit out-of-state tourists from Cincinnati, for example, to travel into areas as distant as Marquette County in the same time period as present routes permit them to cover the distance to Houghton Lake. As a result of this future time-distance change, Suggitt predicts a great increase in Michigan's tourist- resort business. The time-distance change will also provide a market area expansion of five million more people in Illinois, Kentucky, and West Virginia, who will be as close time-wise as Cincinnati is today. y 1Ibid. 2"Future EXpressways in Michigan Plan to Shrink Distances," Ihe Mining Journal, November 10, 1958. 267 The expressway-type highways will shrink the distance time-wise between the industrial area of Detroit and the recre- ational area of the northern part of the state by one-third to one-half over present routes. The savings in transportation costs and time and increased tourist and recreational trade resulting iron the shrinking distance effects, will add much to Michigan's economic standing and to that of Marquette County. Effects of Sawyer Air Force Base It is predicted that the K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base will become the largest "industry" in the area, larger even than the iron mining industry. The Sawyer Air Force Base is one of the major links in the nation‘s chain of defense. It is located twenty miles south of the city of Marquette on a 4,400 acre site in Sands Township. The base was activated in 1956 and has been under construction for four years. Three squadrons of planes will be based at Sawyer. Included will be a fighter group, a squadron of heavy jet bombers, and a squadron of jet tankers. More than 6,000 military and civilian personnel will be stationed or employed there. With their families, this will mean a population increase of nearly 10,000 (about 20%) for Marquette County. For any county in the Upper Peninsula to gain 10,000 in population in three years is almost unheard of--at least since the days of the copper rush. In other words, within three years, Marquette County will be gaining the equivalent in POpulation of another entire county. (The 1950 census showed ) 5": CC 0 four counties in the Upper Peninsula to have had less than 10,000 people. These were Keweenaw, with 2,913; Baraga, 8,037; Luce, 8,147; and Schoolcraft, 9,148. Two other counties, Alger and Ontonagon, had only slightly over 10,000.) Projects planned for the next fiscal year call for ten million dollars of work and for the two succeeding vears, over four million dollars and five million dollars of work, res- pectively. Operation and maintenance of the base, when it becomes fully operational, will involve annual expenditures of around six million dollars. Air Force officers say about half of this will be spent locally. It can be concluded that the activation and Operation of the K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base has had, and will continue to have, a great impact on the economy of Marquette County. The Upper Midwest Economic Study The Ford Foundation has apprOpriated $350,000 for a four- year sutdy of general economic conditions including the business and industrial structure of the Upper Midwest. The study includes Minnesota, Upper Michigan (Marquette County), Montana, North and South Dakota, and western Wisconsin. The study is being conducted by the University of Minnesota and the Upper Midwest Research and Development Council. This is a pilot study and it is hoped it will be useful in guiding future similar investigations in other areas of the United States. "Every activity which contributes to wealth-making in the area will be examined in the study from the standpoint of its present position and future possibilities and the relation R) of each to the others. The character and capabilities of the region's labor supply will be considered. The research pro- ject also will cover mineral and other material resources, water supply, power and transportation facilities."1 Analysis of information obtained is expected to yield two principal products: (I) An understanding of all factors which either contribute to the economic welfare of the region and its people, or which detract from it. (2) A forecast of the future place of the region in the economy of the United States, taking into account shifts in population and changes in inter-regional competition, changing demands for goods and services and recommendations for action needed to accelerate sound economic growth of the region. “a No thorough economic study of a large American regional economic unit, such as the Upper Midwest has yet been made. Completion of such a study will furnish the basic information needed for designing similar studies for other regions and for the nation as a whole. It is hoped that the same functions served by the above study will also result from this dissertation "An Inventory and Historical Development of the Major Resources of Marquette County, Michigan". l"Northern Peninsula Included in Upper Midwest Economic Study," The Mining_Journal, Marquette, December 15, 1958. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1,- Boone Allen, R. C. (ed.) Mineral Resources of Michiran with Statis- tical Tables of Production and Value_pf Mineral Products for 1210 and Prior Years. Pub. 8, Geol. Series 6? Lansing: Geological and Biological Survey, 1912. . (ed.) Production and Value of Nincral Products in Michigan for 13;: and Prior Years. Pub.fi§7, Geol. Series 22; Lansing: Mich. Geol. and Biol. Survey, 1917. Allen, Shirley W. Conservinr Natural Resources. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959. Bald, F. C. Nichigan in Pour_Centuries. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19?1. Barlowe, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics. Enrlewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 195 . Burt, William H. The Mammals offiMichigan. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1946: Callison, Charles H. Americ s fatural Resources. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1957. Dunbar, Willis F. Vol. II: Michigan Through_the Centuries. New York: Lewis Historical Pub. Co., 1955. Fassett, Norman C. A Manual of Aguatic Plants. New York: KcGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 19 0. Gleason, Henry A. The Plants of Michigan. Ann Arbor: George ‘Nahr , 1939 0 Geological Surve f Michigan: The U er Peninsula. Vol. I: Part 1; "Iron-Bearing Rocks”, New Yorl: 1573. Hinsdale, Wilbert B. Archaeological Atlas of Michigan. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1931. Hussey, Russell C. The_Middle and Upper Ordovician Rocks of Michigan. Pub. 16, Geol. Series 39; Lansing: Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1952. 270 271 Lake Superior Iron Ore Association. Lake Superior Iron_0res. Cleveland: Hanna Building, 1933. Lane, Alfred C. Six+h Annual Report of the State Geolof is t to the Board of GeoloL cal Survey for the Year 1204. Lansing: Geol. Survey Div., 1904 Leverett, Prank. Surface Geology of Michigan. Pub. 25; Lansing: Mich. Geol. Survey Div., 1937. . Surface Geology of the Northern Peninsula of Michigan. Pub. 7, Geol. Series 5; Lansing: Mich. Geol. Survey Div., 1911. Marquette Planning Board. MarguetteL_Michigan CityLPlan. 1951. Martin, Helen M. Ne-Saw-Je-Wonl_A Tale of the Waters That Run Down From Lake Superior to the Sea. Cleveland: The William Feather Co., 1939. . (ed.) They Need Not Manish. Lansing: Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1942. Michigan Historical Records Survey Project Division of Works Projects Administration. Inventory of the County_Archives of Michigan, No. 52--Margue ette County. Detroit: 1940. Michigan State Administrative Board. Michigan, A Guide to the Wolverine State. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1937. Years. Pub. 37; Lanaing: Mich. Geol. Survey Div., 1928. h . k Pub. 35, Geol. Series 29; Lansing: Mich. Geol. Surve: Div-: 1923'. Millar, C. E. and Turk, L. M. Fundamentals of Soil Science. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1951. McNall, P. B. Our Natural Resources. Danville, Ill.: The Interstate, 195 Parsons, Ruben L. Conservation American Resources. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 195 Peterson, Roger T. A Field Guide to the Birds. Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1947. Pirnie, Miles D. Michigan Waterfowl Management. Lansing: Game Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1935. Quaife, Milo M. Condensed Historical Sketches of Each of Michigan's Counties. Detroit: J. L. Hudson Co., 1940. s of‘ ichagan for 1923 and Years Smith, R. A. Mineral Resource W "1 ‘l , C Series 2;; Lansing: Lion. Geol. Prior. PUIDQ 3:), Survey Div., 1923. Trippensee, Reuben 3. Wildlife Management. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc.,‘1953. . Vol II: Wildlife Manage.e1t. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953. U.S. Dept. of Agr. LandL tha Yearbook of Agriculture. Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office, 1958. . Soil, the 19 7 Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office, 1957. . SoiL_Survenganaal. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1951. U.S. Water Resources Policy Commission. A Water_Policv for the _American People. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 195 VanHise, C.R. and Bayley, W.S. The_ Marauet te Iron-Bearing District of Michigan. Vol. {XxlII; vashington, D. C. Department of Interior, 1597. Veatch, J.O. Soils and Land of Michigan. East Lansing: The Michigan State College Press, 1953. Ward, Henry B. (ed.) The Foundations of Conservation Education. Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation, 1911. Public Documents,_Raports,_and_Bulletins I Ammann, G. A. The Prairie Grouse of Michigan. Lansing: Game Division, TMi h. Dept. of Conservation, 1957. Bartlett, I10. Uich can Deer. Lansing: Game Division, Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1950. Brown, C. J. D. FisherieaaSurvey of Lake_Michigamme, Marguette and Baraga Counties. Report No.—EOH; Ann Arbor: Institute of Fisheries Research, 1940. . Michigan Lakes and Streams. Bulletin No. 24; Lansing: Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1944. Dodge, C. K. Miscellar eous Papers on the Botan of Michitan. Pub. 31, Biol. Series 6— Lansing: State Printers, 1921. Ebasco Services, Inc. Michigan' 3 Upper Peninsula. Lansing: Mich. Dept. of Economic Development, 1953. 273 t Lee. Deer Piclosical Data. PGDOPt 2133; Lansing: he Div., Mich. Dc t. of Conservation, 1957. + Information. Deer in 1938, Significance of Recenu ~ars Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1950. Lansing: Lansing: er Kill Estimatgg:-l955 Special Seasons. Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1959. 1935 Regular geason Deer Kill Estimates 3: Game Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1959. a De Game Div., Report 2221; . Preliminar1_Estir ates of 1953:8ma11 Game Kill from Report 2223; Lansing Game Div., Mich. Mail Surveys. . of Conservation, 1959. * Dept. A_Eisheries Survey of Sporleg LageL_Marguette Eschneyer, Paul. Institute of Fisheries Countv. Report 739; Ann ArESr: xesearch, 1942. Marquette County Lake Maps (Price list). Dept. of Conservation, 1958. Directorx of Michigan Sawmills. Conservation, 1956. Fish Division. Lansing: Mich. Lansing: Forestry Division. Mich. Dept. of Michigan Forest Pest Detection Program, Lansing: of Conservation, 1957. MICh. Dept. Michigan State Forest Campgrounds. Lansing: Mich. 0 Dept. of Conservation, no date. Pesources of Margpette County,_Michigan. of Conservation, 1943. Gailbraith, Merle G. A Biolochal and Physical Survey of the Marguette<§ounty97Michigan. Chocolav River Drainage_§1sten9 Report 1434; Ann Arbor: Institute of Fisheries Research, 1954. T mbe er D pt. (D +- Mich. Histor o B ar equ ati ns. Report 217?: ,Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1957. Report 2187; Lansing: Gare Division. Lansing: Wildlife Habitat Improvement. of Conservation, 195 . Rocks and Minerais of Michigan. Department of Con- Mich. Dept. Division. Geological Survey Pub. 42; Lansing: 3rd ed. revised. servation, 1951. Hardenberg, H. J. and Reed, Robert. Costs and Production of Michigan Iron M nes. of Conservation, 1957. General Statistics Covering Lansing: Mich. Dept. Henderson, John P. (ed.) Michigan Statist pet ract. 2d ed. East Lansing: Bureau of Business and Eco.om 0 Research, Michivan State University, 1958. Hill, Elton B. and Mawby, Russell G. Types of Farming in Mich- itan. 2d revision. Special bulletin 2067 East Lansing: Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 195$. Hubbs, Carl L. and Cooper, Gerald E. Minnows of Michigan. Eulletin 8; Bloomfield Hills, Mich.: Cranbrook Institute of Science, 1936. Manville, Richard H. A Study of Small_Mammal_ngu1ations in Northern Michigan. Misc. Pub. 73; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1999. Marquette Area Workshgprooklet, 1956. Marquette County Tourist Guide. Ishpeming: Globe Printing, 1959. Martin, Helen M. Outline of the Geologic History of Michigan. Lansing: Geol. Survey Div., Dept. of Conservation. Mich. Dept. of Conservation. Eijhteenth Biennial Report 1955- 1056. Lansing: Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1957. . Forest Fires_and Forest Fire Control in Michigan. Lansing: Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1957. . Nineteenth Biennial Report 1291-12380 Lansing: Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1959. Michigan's Upper Peninsula Iron Ore Industry. Cleveland: Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company,et al., 1958. Moffett, James w. and Locke, Fred. A Fisheries Surv_y of Twin Lake,_Marguette County. Report 65 8; Ann Arbor: Institute of FiSHeries Research: 1941. Reed, Robert C. Iron Ore Shipments Through 1952. Lansing: Geol. Survey Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1956. Reed, Robert C. Michigant Iron Mines. Lansing: Geol. Survey Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1957. Roelofs, E. W. A isherie Su v f Indian and Little White Goat Lakes in Marquette County, and Keewa din Lake in Marguette and Bara a Counties. Report 7Z5: Ann Arbor: Institute of Fisheries Research, 1942. . A Fisheries Survey of Sguaw (Long) andFWitch Lages, Marguette Countf. Report 779; Ann Arbor: Institute of Fisheries Research, 1942. ‘8- 275 Roelcfs, E. W. and Locke, F. E. A Fisheries Surve150f Island Lake,_Marcuette County. Report 737; Ann Arbor: Institute of Fisheries Research, 1942. . A Fisheries Survey_of £013 Lakes, Mam uette County. Report 4E Ann Arbor: Institute of Fisheries Research, 1942. 7 7 . A Fisheries Surge of Swanzt Lake Marouette Countr. Report 74o; Ann Arbor: Institute of Fisheries Research, 1942. Schofield, Raymond D. Status of Bountied Predators in Michigan. Lansing: Game Div., Mich.L Dept. of Conservation,419;‘ 7. Scott, I. D. Inland Lakes of Michigan. Pub. 30, Geol. Series 35; Lansing: Mich. Geol. & Biol. Survey, State Printers, 1921. Sorenson, Harry 0. and Carlson, Emery T. Michigan Mineral In- dustries 195E. Lansing: Geol. Survey Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1958. . Miphggan's Mineral Resources. Lansing: Geol. Survey Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1958. Strassmann, Paul. Economig;§rowth in Northern Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1959. Stuart, W. T., Brown, E.A., and Rhodehamel, E. C. Ground Water Investigatiogs oflthe Margpette Iron-Bearing District. Technical Report 3; Lansing: Geol. Survey Div., Mizh. Dept. of Conservation and U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1954. Survey Report by the National Society of Industrial Realtors. Industry_Lopation Advantaoes of Michi an's U per Penin- , sula. Lansing: Mich. Economic Development Bureau, 1955. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1950 U.S. Census of Acriculture. Vol. I, Part 6, Michigan; Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce, 1950. . 19§4 Census of Agricglture fierieg. AG 54; Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce, 1954. . Sixteenth Census of the United States;* 1240 Pon- ulation. Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce, 19 . U.S. Dept. of Agr. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation, Michiggn Annual Report 122. Lansing: U.S. Dept. of Agr. 1959. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Birds of the Seney Na;;onal Wild- life Refuge. Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Interior, 1955. 276 U.S. Weather Bu'eau. Loca1 Climatological Data with C spar- ative Data, 1C3 . Iarquette, Michi an: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, fileather Bureau, 1958. Van Tyne, Josselyn. Check List of the Birds of Mic iran. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, No. 379; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 19 ' K915. Whiteside, E.P., Schneider, I.F., and Cook, R.L. Soils of Michisan. Special Bulletin 402; East Lansing: Soil Science Dept., Mich. State University, 1956. Wood, Norman A. The Birds of Michigan. Misc. Pub. 75; Ann Arbor: University of MiChigan Press, 1991. Articles and Periodicals "Atomic Energy Seen Industrializing U.P.," The Mining_Journal (Marquette), March 23, 1989. Demmon, E. L. "Forestry Situation in the Lake States, Station Paper No. 13, Lakes States Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agr., Sept., 1948. "Future Expressways in Michizan Plan to Shrinl: Distances," The Mininr Journal (Marquette), November 10,1958. Gevorkiantz, S.R. "Bianagin:g Hardwoods for Quality Increment," Journal of Forestry, Vol. 54, No. 12 (December, 1956), Kelley, Robert w., and Hardenberg, Harry J. "Pebbles to Pendants," Michigan Conservation (Lansing), (July-August, 1958), pp. 7-9. McIntosh, Robert W. "Measuring the 1957 Tourist and Resort Business in Michigan's Upper Peninsula," Business Tgpics, Vol. 6, No. 1, July, 1958. Martin, Helen M. "Dawn of Iron," Michi an Conservat 10n(Lansing}, (July-August, 1958), pp. 23-26. "Natural Gas for U.P. Hinges on Consumer Cost," The Mining Journal (Marquette), March 19, 1959. "Northern Peninsula Included in Upper Midwest Economic Study," The Minipg Journal (Marquette), December 15, 1958. N gren, Harold. "Upper Peninsula Forestry La Retarding Area's Indus try," The Mining_Journal (Marquette , August 12, 19:9. Suggitt, Frank W. "What's Happening to Michigan's Country Mile?," Michigan Conservation Lansing), July-August, 1958, pp. 2-6. 277 "U.P. 'Any Deer' Area Increased to 7,150 Square tiles in 1959 The Ni ninfi Journal (Marquette), August 21, 1959. "What Does Sawyer AFB Mean to Harquette Cou ty and the U.P.?," The Mining Journal (Marquette), May 29, 1959. Evian s * *rlay, John R. Groundwater Availability in Michigan. Lansin5: Geol. Survey Div., Dept. of Conservation, 1958. Geological Survey Division. River Basins. Lansing: Mich. Dept. of Conservation. Hill, E. 3., and Nawby, R. G. Types of Farming_in Michiaan. S.B. 906, 2d revision; East Lansing: Dept. of Agr. Econ- omics, Michigan State University, 1953. Mar rtin, Helen L. Geological Nap of Nichipan. Lansing: Geol. Survey Div., Dept. of Conservation, 1955. . Surface Formations of the Northern Peninsula of Michigan. Lansin5: Geol. Survey Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1957. Michigan Department of Conservation. Southwest Part of Mar- quette County. Lansin5: 1953 and 1957. . North Part Marguette County. Lansin5: 1957. . Southeast Part Marquette County. Lansing: 1957. Iichigan State Hi _hway Department. Michigan,_19§8 Official Highway Map.Lansing:1959. Reed, Robert C. Michigan iron Lines. Lansin5: Geol. Survey Div., Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1957. Schneider, Ivan F., and Whiteside Associations. East Lansing: State University, 1956. . P. Iiaior Eichi"an Soil 1 oi Science Dept., Lich. m [11 Whiteside, E. P., Schneider, Ivan F., and Cook, R. L. Soils of Michigan. S.B. 402; East Lansing: Soil Science Dept., Mich. State University, 1956. Unpublished Material Arbogast, Carl Jr. Basic Principles of Forest lianacement in Northern Hardwoods. Mir eographed paper presen ed at the fall meetin5 of Northern Hemlock and Hardwood Manufacturers Association, Land O' Lates, Wis., September 12,19;:'S Forestry Division. Dis. fi *4. + Upper Peninsula bpa 7‘5, 4 5 1, .. Dept. 01 LALCSeltaI i \ L . V tu.ion of Area 1y Forest Types for T—q .“ I.‘ A1-” . ‘. ‘A_. ‘f ‘ -oresss, 1 L. Lansin5: Lien. ”If: 1 W on, 1+5 . (Limeo,rapned.) Furlons. R0*ert J. filarquette County. Lansin5: Nichiran Tourist Com me No date. (Nime05raphed 2-pa5e report.) Letter from John Chriske, District Supervisor, Field Adm. Div., Nich. Dept. of Conservation, Escanaha, July 7, 195 . Letter from Arthur Feldhauser, Lake and Stream Improvement Technician, Dept. of Conservation, Marquette, Auf. 10,1955. Letter from Glenn C. Gre55, Re5iona Parks Supervisor, Mich. Dept. of Conservation, Narquette, July 8, 1955. Letter from William M. Lart1uett e, Fishery Research Siolo ist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Marquette, July 15, 1953. Letter from DonaldC a. Zettle, Regional Forester, Dept. of Conservation, Nsrquette, July 30, 1959. Metsa, Arne A. Report on Escanaha State Forest. Swinn, Nich.: Forestry Div., MiEh. Dept. of Conservation, 1958. (Typed.) Nyquist, Melvin N. Know parquette County. Narquette: County Ajricultural Ajent, ourt House, 1956. (Typed.) Schneider, Ivan F., Humphrys, C. R., and Ulrich, R. Reconnais- sance Soil Survey of I-arquette County. East Lansing: IWi h. S ate University, 1939-1950. TTyped.) Schooley, Clayton. Report on Michigamme State Forest. Ishpeminq: Forestry Div., Nich. Dept. of Conservation, 195 . (Typed.) Smith, Rodney. School Visits, ULP.--1 F - 8. Marquette: Mich. Dept. of Conservation, 1959. (Typed.§ Upper Peninsula Development Bureau. Upper Peninsula {aterfalls. Marquette: U.P. Development Bureau, No date. (Limeograpned.) Other Sources I~Iarquette County A5ricu1tura1 Agent, Narquette. Personal Inter- view with Lelvin N. Ityqu is t, County A5ent. I.ichi5an Department of Conservation, Marquette and Lansin5. Personal interviews with twenty employ ees representing all divisions of the Conservation Departr ent. . Use of files of Field Adm Div., Narquette; Fish Div., Marquette; and Game Div., Marquet e and Lansing. -*vA-.~- DJ “1 ‘ o an Sta-e University ixtension Service, Narquette. Per- "‘ " V"'v v *1" I‘ ‘ i ‘ sonal interViews with LAtCnfiLOH specialists. Fish and wildlife Service, Marquette. Personal interviews with biolO5ists. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Arr., Narquette. ersonal interviews with H. Heathman, Soil Conservationist. _U_IT L. "‘iiiiiiiiiii“