—‘ .5 —\ -~_ 5 N 5 ‘— % — k m x M x R - -‘ a K K R a. \ E R a x a \ K x ‘ 5 H \ x \— 5 E K H \ SURVEY 0F THE PARASWIC LAMPRE‘E‘S 01‘ MW!) LAKES m h’szHiGAH Thesis for #29 Gem c§ M; S. M£CHIGAN STATE CQLLEGE ‘E‘mmén Yfiwamas Guard $¢53 . » ' 4' . I. '. ‘ I t ' § t \ Date 07169 Jilifllmfl'flimlM1flWifilfl'lflliWfll : )_' 31293 01058 8113 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Survey of the Parasitic Lampreys of Inlanfi. Lakes in Michigan. - presented by Truman T. Guard has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _ M° 5‘ degree in__Z_°_O__1OS’.-_ 41:»? J Var/% h aj or professor May 13. 1953- . . .f- -‘ f .'-r." ’0‘- ..vl,‘-I“' ' -3 ~..-p .‘dr‘.{°- aka 3‘ -‘V'- PLACE N RETURN BOXtomnmthbchockomtromywmd. TOAVOIDFINElnumonorbdtmddoduo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU I. An Milan-tho Action/EM Opportunity Imtltwon Wt ’ '“_- --.._0,.- SURVLY OF THE PARASITIC LAMPREYS OF INLAND LAKES IN MICHIGAN By TRUMAN THOMAS qgmn A THESIS submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirement: for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Zoology 1953 Q/,z/$} ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his deepest appreciation to Dr. P. I. Tack for his guidance and counsel during the course of this study and in the preparation of the manuscript. The writer is also indebted to Dr. A. s. Hazzard of the Institute for Fisheries Researchmichigan Department of Conservation, for his counsel and for making this study possible. Sincere thanks are extended to all district fisheries supervisors and other Field Adminstration personnel of the Michigan Department of Conservation for their assistance in the collection of data. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to all others who aided in this undertaking and to my wife who gave so freely of her time and effort in the typing of this thesis. “.2". 4*” (1., . ' TABLE OF CONTENTS MRODUGTIONeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo Wang IN MIOHIGueeeeeeOeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed “01.10“ brOOk lmrQIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC Michigan broOk lamprOICOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Silver lupre’OOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000.00000000000000000 Ch.atnut lupr.’00000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 80‘ lamprey.OOOOOOQOOOO0.00.00.00.000.0.0000...0.. “THODS AND “TmumeeeOOOOeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed Survey of obstructions and barriers to sea , lamprey maratlon.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sway of 3" lamprGy Bpaflnlng ”ea'eeeeeeeeeeeeee E.t1nt.. 0f lupr.’ Pradatianeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee n13cussxos or assunrs or sunvzz......................... 80.. Imprey' Of inlmd 18308 in Hiohigme e e e e e e e e e Big Platte Lake, senzie county............... me Charla'Vle, °w1°'°1x 001111153. e e e e e e e e e e M Cad Mullet was, GhObOygan COMtye e e e e e Devee Lake, Ogemaw countyz................... Chestnut lampre’DOOOOOOOOO0000‘.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOD Big Paw Paw Lake, Berrien ccunty............. Silvor lampreyOOOOCOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOD. Van Etten Lake, Ioscc county................. Other inland lakes included in the survey reported possessing lampreys and lampreye v whoa. r1.h’eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo SWIOCDOOOOOOOO.0......00.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... ascauusnnirions ran FURTHER srunx....................... Lisssiruar.............................................. APPENDICESOOOOCOODOOOOOIIDOOODDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOODDD \l GRIN U H 10 13 20 20 23 28 31 32 33 33 35 39 #2 us #8 P1 00"... 00001000.... 0 e. e C e (00.60! ! 000.000.00.00000060 eeeee-ee-eeeveoee eon-0eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevh' 00.000.000.0-OOOge0......0000 livesnote-eveoeee00ee-eeoeeel INTRODUCTION The appearance of the sea lamprey--Petromzzon marinug Linnaeus-in the inland waters and its spread throughout the Great Lakes basin has become a matter of increasing con- cern to fishermen and scientists alike. Prior to 1921, when the first sea lamprey was taken from Lake Erie, a further ex- tension of this species from.Lake Ontario into the upper Great Lakes was believed to have been prohibited by the Niagara Falls (Applegate, 1950). Since the construction of the Velland Canal between Lakes Erie and Ontario, however, the sea ' lamprey has gradually spread throughout the Great Lakes and some of the larger inland lakes in Michigan. Each year since the initial survey of the sea lamprey spawning streams in Michigan by Shatter (l9h9), there has been an increasing number of reports of the presence of lampreys and lamprey-marked fish in our inland lakes. Whether or not these reports indicate the establishment of a potentially dangerous fish predator is believed to be dependent on the species of lamprey present. Five species of lampreys are present in Michigan waters, although only three species are parasitic. Two of the three parasitic lampreys are native to Michigan (chestnut and silver lampreys) but neither are believed to be dangerous fish predators. The third parasitic species is the sea lamprey currently held responsible for the recent decline in the Great Lakes fishery. The publicity given the sea lamprey studies undoubtedly has heightened the general belief that all lampreys or lamprey- marked fish indicate the presence of that species. All para; sitic lampreys wound fish by their feeding activity, but only the sea lamprey is believed to be dangerous enough to cause appreciable mortality. A record of the distribution and an estimate of the extent of establishment of parasitic lampreys in our inland lakes therefore, seems advisable. This thesis presents a summary of the data collected during a survey of the parasitic lampreys of inland lakes in Michigan conducted during the spring and summer of 1952, under the direction of the author, by the Institute for Fisheries Research of the Michigan Department of Conservation, in co- operation with Michigan State College. LAMPRIIS IN MICHIGAN Five species of lampreys are known to inhabit Michigan waters (Hubbs and Lagler, l9h7). These lampreys can be grouped into the non-parasitic and the parasitic species. The non-parasitic group includes the.American brook lamprey and the Michigan brook lamprey while the latter includes the sea lamprey, the chestnut lamprey and the silver lamprey. Several features of the life-histories of the five lampreys are similar: (1), spawning in fresh-water brooks and streams during the spring and early summer, (2), a larval period, in muck banks downstream from spawning areas, (3), transformation to adult forms, (u), attainment of sexual maturity and ascent of tributary streams for spawning and, (5), death of adults following spawning. The American brook lamprey The American brook lamprey-egntogphenug lamottenii LeSueur--is a non-parasitic species present in many streams in Michigan. This lamprey closely resembles the sea lamprey, both possessing two distinct dorsal fins, but distinguished by the lack of radiating teeth in the buccal cavity and by the smaller‘size (5 to 7 inches) of the brook lamprey. At transformation this lamprey assumes all of the characteristics of the parasitic lampreys such as a suctorial mouth, rasping tongue, and teeth. (Although the digestive tract is present it is nonufunctional (Hubbs and Lagler, 1947). During the three to four months of adult life the American brook lamprey does not feed, although, it is thought that amino-acids, oil and carbohydrates can be taken through the skin by absorption (Okkelberg, 1922). The Michigan brook lamprey The Michigan brook lamprey-élghthyomygon foggor Reighard and Cummins--is a non-parasitic species abundant throughout Michigan, occurring in all basins of Lakes Erie, Huron, Michi- gan and Superior (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937). It usually spends the entire life-cycle in smaller streams apparently avoiding the larger rivers or lakes. This lamprey closely parallels the American brook lamprey in habitat, size (5 to 7 inches) and distribution but may be distinguished by the single continuous dorsal fin. The silver lamprey The silver or nothern lamprey-«Lehthyommgog gnigggpig Hubbs and Trautman-«is the northeasternmost of the parasitic species of the genus Ichthyomyzon (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937). This lamprey occurs throughout the St. Lawrence River from Quebec to Lake Ontario including Lake Champlain, although, the point of greatest abundance appears to be in Lake Erie, Lake Huron and the extreme northern parts of Lake Michigan (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937). Hubbs and Trautman (1937), reported the silver lamprey from.Michigan as follows: the Saginaw River, in 1926; Van Etten Lake, in l92fl; and the Sturgeon River, in 1921. This lamprey is also present as a resident population in Black Lake, Cheboygan county (Moffet and Brown, 1939). The silver lamprey is characterized by the single con- tinuous dorsal fin and unicuspid circummoral teeth (Hubbs and Lagler, l9h7). Rarely do these lampreys exceed a length of 12 inches at sexual maturity. Although active parasitic populations of the silver lamprey occur in some Michigan lakes and streams, they are not believed to exert any damaging effect on the fishery. The chestnut lamprey The chestnut lampreyeélchthyogygog gggtaneug Girard-- seems to find its northeastern limit in the Lake Michigan drainage of Michigan. There are no records of the penetration of this species into the drainages of Lake Erie 0r Huron which are inhabited by the silver lamprey (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937). Hubbs and Trautman (1937), reported the chestnut lamprey from.Michigan as follows: Lake Margrethe, Crawford county in 1931; Lake Manistee, Manistee county in 1916; and the Manistee River, Kalkaska county in 1931. Numerous additional speci- mens have been received, by the Institute for Fisheries Re- search, from most of the Lake Michigan watershed. The chestnut lamprey is characterized by the single continuous dorsal fin and bicuspid circummoral teeth which distinguish this species from the silver lamprey (Hubbs and Lagler, 19h7). Since it rarely exceeds a length of 12 inches at sexual maturity, it is readily distinguished from the larger sea lamprey which has two distinct dorsal fins. Mhereas, the chestnut lamprey is one of the parasitic species, there are no reliable data as to its depredations on the fishery and it is not generally believed to be danger- ous to fishes in Michigan. The sea lamprey The sea lamprey-APgtrogygog‘mgzigg§_Linnaeus-¥is a parasitic species which occurs throughout all of the Great Lakes basin and the St. Lawrence River, and is especially abundant in Lakes Huron, Michigan and Ontario. This species is a landlocked form of the larger anadromous marine species. The parasitic activities of the sea lamprey on Great Lakes fishes have been the subject of recent research by Applegate (1950), and Hile (l9h9). Fishermen and biologists generally agree that the sea lamprey was responsible for the recent decline in the Great Lakes fishery especially the lake trout fishery in Lakes Huron and Michigan. Each spring large numbers of sexually mature adult sea lampreys, from the Great Lakes, migrate into numerous streams in Michigan for spawning (Applegate, 1950 and Shatter, l9h9).' Some spawning migrations are known to extend well upstream and through one or more inland lakes. These observations have caused considerable alarm, among, sportsmen and biolo- gists, concerning the possible establishment of large sea lamprey populations in inland lakes located downstream from spawning areas. MITHDDS AND MATERIALS Numerous reports of lampreys and lamprey-marked fish from several inland lakes in Michigan, have been filed by sportsmen and fisheries biologists, with the Institute for Fisheries Research of the Michigan Department of Conservation, since 19h7. Since the term ‘lamprey' may include any one of five species, reports of their presence may be misleading except when reported by technically trained personnel. Reports received of large numbers of small lampreys (5 to 7 inches) spawning in tributary streams, probably indicates the presence of non-parasitic lampreys. These reports were excluded from the list of lakes to be studied. Simultaneous reports of lampreys and lamprey-marked fish, however, may be some Justification for further study. A list of lakes reported possessing parasitic lampreys was compiled from these reports, by the author, and used as a basis for the survey (Table 1.). The abundance of lakes and the greater fishing pressure found in the lower pen- insula of Michigan appears to increase the probability of TABLE I LIST OF LAKES REPORTED POSSESSING PARASITIC LAMPREYS County Lake Reported by Year fitfla 112 affiengel 1156' " Round R. Bengel 1950 Bennie Big Platte E. Basford 1951 ‘ Ann OJ. Gray 1951 Berrien Big Paw Paw 0.1'. Yoder 1949 . Pimflom 0.1'. Ioder 194. Case Magician B. Brooks 1951 Charlevcix Charlevoix EA. Steehrd 1947 " Geneaarath Kuebler 1958 Cheboyga‘n Black I. Crowe 1959 “ Burt v.0. Applegate 1947 P Mullet 1.0 . Applegate 1947- Craeford Margarethe 3’. Made 1951 Inlet Carp V. Seaman 1950 Iosco Van Etten RN. Golding 1951 Leelanau Glen H. Valle 194.9 . " Iceland G. Ayers 1958 ‘3 Little Traverse A. Bel-sch 1951 Mackinac Brevoort M. (hlbraith 1952 " Unitarian L.R. Anderson 1949 Menistee Menistee L. Payne 1951 Mason Pei-e Marquette I. Roberts 1950 Cessna Bart K. Kidder 1949 " Pentwater v.0. Applegate 1947 Ogenaw Devee DJ. Hughes 1951 ' leges 1. Hammond 1951 Preaque Isle Ocqueoo v.c. Applegate 1947 Van Buren . 1ft .1958 Lake of the Woods .h.. 0" .4“..‘ o I - .. . I -. t . e . -‘ .. . . . " r . I 'e s. ‘ e I I t 9 ‘ l . I . I c .l . . . . . I O x ”A- .u—O . - no. .0 - 0 o - e - -- . . . .. ’- .0 ~ . I -- Q 0‘ | \ - . . . by , 'l ,e . i . I ~l . . ‘ . . I \.-'- ) .,‘ l ‘L - v t . ,I. O I . I I . . i ' l' . u, t - -‘“»-- .4. 0.- ‘ - --— - 0v..- - -... - - e- o.--- ‘0 C O .— .- 0 'e - .n‘e \, ~-l-.’-"9 . s.a~. .0 . --..-.- 0---- *- ---.v O..- .4.‘.'.’“' --- 0 .a--'--- -- ' I ._ - .. 0's _ ' ' I. \K ..o- .. “-q‘.-.‘ --- o w...‘ a. —- - 0 A , ... I. - ' 0 .. . ‘-J, .. . - a l V . I A. l e i I I _- i O i ‘ H . O O " ‘ J -, _ .. '1 A" . .. 'v. ' { . \r n.‘ , ' . g‘ g - I . - a . . .. . -‘.. l . ."lJ... . -. 7 \ ..v n . ' | ~ ,_I s - a e s ‘e 1, ,I‘ DJ . .. . . o'- i . _. I ,. ‘ _ ’ .- ,.- Q ' _‘ [I 'a‘ \ - . I ~ ' .' he r .. ' i V . .a~ .a. .', -- e u " t t a \I ‘ e '. " a ,. . y i .5 - I. . u . . e. e .1 . *r‘ e t C v 4 ‘\ . ' . . AI ._.. . , '1‘. " _. I '. \ .5 '_ ,’ . u '0 I. I 3, e . . .I J . J’ 7 \ ,t .\ . ' ‘ . . . - 0.' . a. I e ' 1 en. “7- - - --~ -okn .- .u . . an- ¢ ¢ .--.-0 reports of lamprey-marked fish even though lamprey pepulations are small. It is not to be implied, however, that inland lakes in the upper peninsula of Michigan are not supporting resident populations of parasitic lampreys. Since the sea lamprey is not native to Michigan waters, it is believed to be present only in lakes which are accessi- ble from.the Great Lakes. Therefore, reports of lampreys and lamprey-marked fish in lakes protected by barriers a- gainst a sea lamprey invasion probably reflect the presence of one or more of the parasitic native lampreys. Survey of obstructions and barriers Applegate (1950), states that 'a barrier to migration is differentiated from an obstruction to migration in that the former cannot be surmounted by spawning migrant adult sea lampreys'. Since no data were given as to the physical standards by which effective barriers were measured, no 9- valuations could be made of other dams until further re- search. .To obtain these data the author made a detailed study of the spring spawning run of sea lampreys below an experimental barrier, operated by the Michigan Department of Conservation, in the Black River, Mackinac county. The data collected from.the study indicate that the head of water, slepe and type of construction of the spillway are probably the most important features to be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of dams. It is believed 10 that a concrete dam, unmodified by a lip, with a near verti- cal spillway and a minimum head of water of 36 inches, proba- bly prevent a further upstream migration of the sea lamprey: These data were used as standards for a distribution study of dams located on outlet and tributary streams to inland lakes in the lower peninsula of Michigan during the spring of 1952, conducted by district conservation officers and the author. (See Fig. l and Appendix B for location and structural details). Survey of sea lamprey spawning areas Whether the sea lamprey becomes established in an inland lake may depend upon successful reproduction in tributary streams (Applegate, unpublished). Consequently, it seemed advisable to include a distribution study of sea lamprey spawn- ing areas, especially, where located above inland lakes. District fisheries supervisors and conservation officers as- sisted the author in conducting this survey during the spring spawning season (report form Appendix D). Additional records were taken from the literature (See Fig. l and Appendix A for location). Estimates of lamprey predation An estimate of the extent of lamprey predation in the lakes studied was taken from the proportion of lamprey-marked fish in a sample catch. Such records could not be taken by a limited staff of technically trained personnel nor was an AV If Figure 1 Location of sea lamprey spawning streams and barriers in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. I I“) if) [,0“ ON “itAdADA |p~ r(r, '4 as v\. ‘ | n Wm LEGEND u c t | \_ f." r - ,. s n i It I , ‘2“ fr“. ' r. _,.\ e wwoww spswwmc ___._L L \i H’ ” -1- ,1» r”, , ‘ P srs aw _- —--——- “‘4‘? j I . - 1.. ‘3 _(,....‘Nj~4a\ , o REPORTED seswwmc « _, 1 ,. " I srsssws \ 3 WWW) 7ft! V’ 24‘ d‘x \f/{flz’j 1 - EFFECTIVE BARRIERS H NOT EFFECTIVE BARRIERS SCALE 40 MILES V \ DITDIE R. O is \ IAIISTE I. R. . e In A v on lame-ass‘ ..~‘1,_J_ .__L_f a O - ._ L_ _ _. KALAIAZOO R. . . T ‘ "; I a lS-N IA AMAIOO (ALNO IT. JOOIPR R. . . | 4......4w / _ ‘. . v1 lilwe' '1 u ucuiluniisolLl (AR! 0/! .- \ NJ \ I l A A - - . U . | . . ,., 'fi' ’ j \ . . ~—---—-.-, - l ‘ .— } .‘flsvefi (C VA IIA ILLA II . | ‘ ‘ ._-.l_ .—J I L '..u|LAC . ' v All. .“ r" W u '66.. _._e-‘-'~. ‘5 svnov fi , .‘ ‘1 .z ' j . ,i_.._f—’ . ,1. ausweeow a. r' , . , _ . _. .lv _ , _ ' ' esawcs..v , r. ‘i 1gp, . .. l’ H CANADA s- .» x J.- 13 intensive study believed to be necessary for a preliminary survey. As a substfitute, use was made of observations taken by local residents plus additional netting records by the author and Instutute for Fisheries Research lake survey crews. One and as many as three local residents from 19 lakes in the lower peninsula of Michigan were requested to report a daily fish catch record from June 1 to September 1, 1952 (re- port form Appendix E). Where possible, boat livery operators were secured for this purpose in order to obtain a maximum number of observations. DISCUSSIOI OF RESULTS OF SURVEY The data collected, during the survey, indicate that establishment or the sea lamprey in accessible inland lakes may or may not be represented by the presence or lampreys and lamprey-marked fish. Large numbers of spawning migrant adult sea lampreys from the Great Lakes are believed to pass through one or more inland lakes enroute to spawning areas. Applegate (1950), states that spawning migrant adult sea lampreys are not in the active parasitic phase, consequently the presence of lampreys or lamprey-marked migrant fish in the lake during this period cannot be used to indicate es- tablishment of this species. The downstream migration or newly transformed adult sea lampreys from the larval habitat, during the winter and early spring (Applegats and Brynildson, 1951), also may bring large 1“ numbers of this species into inland lakes through which they must pass to reach the Great Lakes. Since it is ap- parent that only small populations of sea lampreys are pre- sent in our inland lakes there is some Justification to as- sume that few of these downstream migrants find suitable conditions for establishment. Consequently, reports of the presence of lampreys and/or lamprey-marked fish in inland lakes during this period are not necessarily indicative of a resident population. During the summer season migrations of the sea lampreys and most fish populations are restricted, that is, there are no anadromous migrations from the Great Lakes as occurs during the spawning season. The downstream movement of the newly transformed adult lampreys are at a minimum (Applegate and Brynildson, 1951). Consequently, introductions of the sea lampreys into the inland lakes are greatly reduced. Although there is only one record of the presence of parasitic native and sea lampreys resident in the same inland lakes (Burt and Mullet Lakes, Cheboygan county) all lakes from which marked fish are taken should be assumed to be supporting two or more parasitic lampreys until adequate evidence has been collected to the contrary. Since there are no known methods for accurately determining from the scare the species of lamprey responsible, the capture and identi- fication of sexually immature adult lampreys during the summer season is the only reliable evidence to indicate es- 15 tablishment. Table 2 presents the total fish catch recorded during the survey grouped according to species and lake by total catch and number of lamprey-marked fish. The proportion of the total number of fish recorded by species, which were lamprey; marked, represents the percentage of lamprey-marked fish by species. The percentage of lamprey-marked fish in each lake studied was calculated on a similar basis. Although the recorded catch for each species (Table 2) is small there is no reason to believe that lamprey-marked fish were taken disproportionately to their relative a- bundance. Since certain species show a consistently greater percentage of lamprey-marked fish there appears to be some Justification to group species according to their relative susceptibility to lamprey attack. Consequently, Table 2 was divided into two groups according to species. Group-I fishes include the northern pike, yellow pikeperch, suckens, trout and muskellunge. Group II fishes include the smallmouth black bass, largemouth black bass, crappies and others (perch, blue- gills, rock bass etc.). If Group I fishes are more susceptible to lamprey at- tack than Group II fishes then, the percentage of lamprey; marked fish in the former should be a more sensitive indi- cator of predation in the lakes. Table 3 presents the total fish catch recorded in Group I (Table 2), excluding the muskellunge, from six inland lakes in Michigan. Brief dis— .523 2.3 madame :33 no: doufiaumoanama use coupes: no eaooem m mama. on.” so." a...“ . $3 .258 w 2.5: ‘2." :3 o as... nu nun «sash «one . a R n R Es» 8-- '38 one." a "a . a .3 .88 slsso Re ‘ sauce-h. 333 s 08 4 o a lone lg 2...“ n e 3 .3 S.— Iaom sap . 8:: vac." n 63 o 2. page! Esau no: can." Hagan-.8 Maoists-o «an n S o a n on .3 a: an! 2. o sense u no.— u 3 1:52 a N «NA 3 an: a A I a J. :1 5 $332 a.“ momma demand Han each“ an: denudatheamaea no ewspaooaom n H.349 19 Mouse Haven ad moan vomnmalheanssa no emdpnsoaon an sense aspen ca away vexasanheanssa we menace m noose noun caduceus Hence a ms.n me.a .om.» om.a om.oa senses» u an qooa m 00 0 can an 000 aspen m4. a.“ a a.» a.» n on stepson: m.b 0.0m H n m.¢ a an H.b H «a 00>00 0.0m 0.0 0 H 0.0 0 0* 0.¢n we ONH neppm nub n.H 0.x 0 rem 0.0 0 0p poaas: o.a o.a mm mama Haoroanono m.oa o.on a « n.o a oa_ o.o o H o.oa n on sausam mwm a am a a me a a mm film seasons Ham connoom $ 05099 mnouoam noaonoxam loaamu. exam anonpnoz sung n nqm uoamu9 .3 .m onupuaam o.m a mmx9a\m nwapnom agonou .pm noo9 .H .9 099m m mm\aa\n uuuoo com aanwnH nowham, .- .m 0959an W «0.3? ton tub amazon. 909gauq auapnono 9099a9 .9..m oupnuq n.« .9.9 na mn\ma\m Macao oaaaoo . noaho9 )3 .m onapuaau o.«a a mn\na\9 . . noaha9 A: .m onapaaaa H.na a mo\o \9 oopon :qagwo cause .9 .9 099m v.omaw.aa can «m\¢m\o nouam confine»: noaho9 .9 .m onam 9.99 a mn\am\n udugq ufiaaon . noqho9 .: .m .mam v.9an.9a a «n\mm\n «tonnage aaaopuua noaho9 43 .m ondm n.na H mn\oa\o goouo nopaflm oouoH gauge .9 .9 onupaaaH «.99 H mnxa \9 noownspm . cause .9 .9 onapuaau m.oa 9 Am\ \9 cyan nomhonono uoahu9 .:_.m onupuaau m.na a mn\om\9 s . noaha9 .: .m ouapaaaH «.o a mn\o \9 Manpoanuao . uoaha9 A: .m oadm n.«9 a mn\oa\o s g . cause .9 .9 onam ”.09 a mn\a \o s m . 9099a9 .2 .m oaam 0.09 a un\« \v nopdm on on naopoanuno noama9 .3 .m onfim o.ma-n.oa v mn\m«\n yum you . 9099.9 «3 .m oopnaa a.» -H.m a un\oa\o . g . no99o9 A: .m omen ».n9-v.«a I ~n\om\n . g . cause .9 .9 onflm n.o9-a.na « mn\mm\n guano cyan noaunom cause .9 .9 0999 c.9auo.ma o mn\oa\o a . 9°99u9 A: .m onam «.9aum.na a «n\ma\o oduuom . cause .9 .9 unapaaaH ca Hn\n \9 oppaam cannom 9°99o9 I: .m .999 oq994¢.n99 am mn\¢ \o s s . nowhob .3 .w 099m 0.9aco.va a «mumm\a Moonm nosm namoHHN nonoaa n9 godpaoauapaooa hadnapasu upwnoa .02 upon nopflm oxaq menace hangadq com o Navqomgq qoapooaaoo 909gaug -ur’ll'. I - ’I o . ‘ I I I I 53 8.1% .x .m an“ finumé on «one E SE .8 .n «no? hound—0A 300nm damaged: .818. .3 .m 38 doumé n «33? x38 5.5 383 938 .9 .9 2am oéuod a an). \n .. .. .. v.88 .9 .9 853 n4. a an} \m. utoflap 33.6" .. .813 .n .m 8:3 064.5 :3 «333 flange 553 noahos .u .m cabana n.0uv.m a mm\o \m oopuaqq: uxuoaaou noahoa .B .m oo»nag o.nu¢.m m Nm\ma\m noomnspm nuMhonono noise .3 .m 3:. a.» a «Qua? s s .. .312. .s .m 2.33 n.3,.» a «flaw? 33.6 33 no .28 nowhua .— .m cornuH a won an no 0E hongaon xoonm goodnoad 3285 .m .A $335 a; H a! \0 £833: 03303. .315 .n .m 09:3 .12-?» m «{3} 33.... an.» 83H 313. .u .m oSpaaaH «6 a «333 $33. .. 325 .e .e 2333 n5 H B\ \b .. .. mucus .5 .B on:aqfiMH. m.» H‘ Hmm mm anvm- uuwhononp canon“ dd 3333333 hfinupoa 533 .oz 38 .853 8:5 358 hon—mama .353 5.80 o 553 ‘ 'u’l-l I. 'Illi: ‘ II t ' I. I I Al i it I I. ' .n I I - ' t l. t ' l 4"- ll. ' I 1’ A .I - I 1‘ '0‘- y. .1 I". [A O I - . o t 0 O V . to I h n! O O O I O O ‘ O I I |l '0 .. a ‘ ‘II‘ C - '1‘: I- I O C II C Q 0 II » O O I 0 Op. 'LIIIII. ll i'i' ' J. '0‘ u, 1‘- .11."- III ‘I’ . I ‘0 - .n l Iv. I . .‘l ‘ C .n.'.'.' l I I. C ' .I ‘.0 I.l‘ C1. 0 I ‘sd..l 'Illn’l I. '50. C It... o‘n t . l. .I 1.1)!!- ll - . I ‘n 'v '7 ' -‘ '.II I. I I q ' I ,.' ' 1‘ ‘ I t I I - ‘ ll .‘ 4‘ '1. - . I ‘ - I - .- .I ‘ I. ' .‘ Q ' a v ‘ I. I ‘ ' l 1 1 .u I U n -- III-I’ln'lu. I .l 1 9 5"-.. I!» ‘n'd'llcn ‘ ‘1 t .1 O ' nl h I l‘ ' 1. 1 i ‘ '0 3" nl -‘ . J I - s ‘ I ‘ I 'n- | v I III...- ' t... I. I I .III. I ' r ‘ n‘ ‘I ‘b .0! ."‘| ’IO Appendix D Report form used by district fisheries unpervilore to record observations; 5“ Report of Lam-irey Observations 55 Name of lake or stream:_ _olo ~._ ..-—..~ -'~——A—--m- -‘ . __. ecunty: T. R. 3., or location: ___..-., '9... a”. (Pheck annrooriate answers unless otherwise indicated.) I. What species of lampreys were observed? Michigan brook lamnrey _ (several or many) American brook lamprey -' (several or many) Silver lamprey __, (several or many) Chestnut lamprey. ~_— (several or many) Sea lamprey ~"H.-‘ (several or many) Lamprey spn. (several or many) II. Under what conditions were they observed? During passage upstream On or using their spawning beds Attached to some species of fish.“ - Below a dam (Others) M a-.. “—u—n- ---.--. _-----o-.~‘-'u--.—. p” _.—-. . c..— .— v—“q— III. If lampreys were observed on their Spawning grounds, you may be able to estimate the number present and the extent of the spawning grounds. (Please make such a report for each species checked under No. I.) What is your estimate of the number of spawners? — _ggn what is your estimate of the spawning area being used? (Use convenient linear measure.) IV. water temp; Air temps ___. Date: Time: V. Were Specimens preserved? - .-.~---_—c-..--—~ .n—o VT. . Comments: VII. Please mail this reoort promptly to: Truman T. Guard, Grayling State Fish Hatchery, Grayling, Michigan. App endix 1': Report tom need by local residents to record. fish catch. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 1?. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Recorded Catch for the Month or June, 1952 57 Total Dell: Oatch oeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OoeeeeoooeoeeeeOeeeeeeeee Oeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee oeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo ooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee .eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee0 Oeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeee Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Total Scarred OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO oeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeee. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed Ooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo Oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo . —‘ J?! 30 ’34 Maylb'sb Aug 1 '55 20 “$6 \5 ’51 ' No" Y0)? Inn 10 ’57 \vy,‘ \xk Fat i7 59 ,‘ JUN ‘1’ 79?? < $7 HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES I ll llll 9 312 3010588113