The mechanics of the inventory in the year 19l|.7 required the 

 cooperation of the Field Administration Division of the Department 

 of Conservation and the p\±ilic at large, particularly organized 

 groups such as sportsmen's clubs. Boy Scouts, I4.-H clubs, etc. 

 Considerable publicity of the program preceded the knoim spamiing 

 season. Posters requesting cooperation from the public in report- 

 ing sea lamprey runs were put up by local conservation officers 

 along stream banks, in public buildings, and public meeting 

 places (Figure 1). These posters requested that the local conser- 

 vation officer be notified -when sea lampreys were observed in 

 streams. The conservation officers were instructed to forward all 

 reports immediately to the district fishery biologist within whose 

 zone they were located. Each officer received a memorandxnn along 

 with the supply of posters. The memo described the mechanics and 

 requirements of the program. 



All reports were investigated by the district fishery biol- 

 ogists or other members of the Fish Division. Special report forms 

 (Figure 2) were provided each biologist to insure uniformity of the 

 data to be taken at each site of observations. Required were: 

 locationi size of sea lamprey run; and characteristics of spawning 

 grounds . 



The inventory was repeated in 19U8. Its conduct was the same 

 as that of 19k7 "ivith the exception that, in general, only those 

 reports that constituted new records of distribution were person- 

 ally investigated by the biologists. Furthermore, in this year, 

 the district fishery biologists were instnicted to investigate as 

 thoroughly as possible the largest runs occurring in their areas. 



ResTilts of the inventory 



The presence of migrating sea lampreys or sea lamprey spawn- 

 ing activity was verified in 92 Michigan streams in the drainages 

 of Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior. (Table 1 and Figure 

 3 J Appendix A, Table 1. ) Their presence in sixteen additional 

 streams is considered relatively certain, but they were not posi- 

 tively identified in these locations. Records for these latter 

 streams are classified as "reliable reports" (Table 1 and Figure 3 J 

 Appendix A, Table 1). 



To facilitate grouping the distributional records and comments 

 in both tables and text, I have utilized the administrative regions 

 established by the Department of Conservation. Region 1 is the 

 entire Upper Peninsula. Region 2 is the northern half of the Louver 

 Peninsula with its southern boundary an imaginary line extending 

 from the City of Muskegon to the City of Bay City. Region 3 is the 

 southern half of the Lower Peninsula south of this imaginary line. 



8 - 



