n.5,“. 1.
35w.“ .

 

 

 

 

. 1 E
41L4JF~ .
ﬁg,

 

 

 

‘1.“
w.

‘ .Q-< n5gv . ‘ Z (Wu!
, .werdur .. ism
A 2.55..“ EMEEI.
i a a? ‘

"aw

94.9.10.
v}: 1.1
«.1. .Er. .1

 

 

 

HG

Hamill]

312

lllllllllllllllllill

3 018017172

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Initial Evaluation of the Habitat and Fisheries
Resources Associated With a Dam Removal in
a Michigan Goldwater Stream

presented by

Kristi D. Klomp

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Fish. & Wildl.

$4143 41%,, 7

Major professor

 

Date December 15, 1998

0.7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE I DATEUEDE

JD":20J$i¢ix£t§ 04 ES“ 1|

OCT 2 2 2004

 

W

 

 

 

 

 

Q
L32 9 am,
6* .’ ;
l g; U r i 1

iluuzgom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1“ W14

AN INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE HABITAT AND FISHERIES RESOURCES
ASSOCIATED WITH A DAM REMOVAL IN A MICHIGAN
COLDWATER STREAM
By

Kristi D. Klomp

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1998

ABSTRACT
AN INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE HABITAT AND FISHERIES RESOURCES
ASSOCIATED WITH A DAM REMOVAL IN A MICHIGAN
COLDWATER STREAM
By

Kristi D. Klomp

Stronach Dam was built in 1912 as a hydroelectric dam on the Pine River,
Manistee County, Michigan. A high sand bedload contributed to the ﬁlling of the 26-
hectare reservoir and led to the decommissioning of the dam in 1953. In 1996, a staged
drawdown (2 feet/year) of the dam was initiated, and is expected to be complete by 2003.
A 1995 pre-removal habitat assessment of a 9.2 km stretch of stream adjoining Stronach
Dam indicated that habitat quality is degraded below the dam and for 3.8 km upstream
from the dam where gradient and streambed particle size are reduced. In 1996, 31
permanent transects were surveyed to establish initial streambed elevations. Slight
changes in elevation were detected in 1997 after lowering the dam 2 l/2 feet. Abundance
of rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout, and white suckers was quantiﬁed using a
multi-pass depletion method of electroﬁshing. White suckers were found to outnumber
trout 9 to 1 in the habitat downstream from the dam; trout and sucker densities were
nearly equal in the upstream reach impacted by the dam; while trout were 11 times more
abundant than suckers upstream from the dam’s inﬂuence. Growth analysis of white
suckers, rainbow trout, and brown trout did not exhibit differences related to location
within the study reach. Habitat and fish populations will continue to be monitored

annually to determine the long-term impacts of the dam removal.

C0pyright by
KRISTI DEUR KLOMP

1998

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and
Michigan State University.

I am grateful for the guidance and helpﬁil suggestions provided by my advisor, D.
Hayes, and my graduate committee members, R. Batie, T. Burton, and N. Kevern.

My undergraduate interns, J. Lessard, J. Spoelstra, and B. Thompson, and lab
technician, S. Pauley, deserve special recognition for their hard work and commitment.

I would like to thank T. Rozich (Michigan Department of Natural Resources), B.
Stuber (United States Forest Service), T. Moris (United States Forest Service), and D.
Battige (Consumers Energy Co.) for their cooperation, advice, and for providing
assistance in the ﬁeld.

Thanks goes to V. Nelson and the Pine River Association, R. Schmidt from
Schmidt Outﬁtters, E. Youngblood from Pine River Chapter Trout Unlimited, and the
West Michigan Chapter Trout Unlimited, all who graciously volunteered their time or
ﬁnancial support.

I also extend my deepest appreciation to my husband, Brad, for his ongoing

support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 4
METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 8
Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 8
Fish Abundance .............................................................................................................. 12
Fish Growth .................................................................................................................... 14
gainbow Trout and Brown Trout .............................................................................. 14
White Suckers ............................................................................................................ 14
Growth Analysis ........................................................................................................ 15
RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 16
Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 16
Fish Abundance .............................................................................................................. 45
Fish Growth .................................................................................................................... 53
Rainbow Trout ........................................................................................................... 53
Brown Trout .............................................................................................................. 56
White Suckers ............................................................................................................ 59
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 64
Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 65
Expected Long-term Changes to Habitat ........................................................................ 67

Fish Abundance .............................................................................................................. 69

Age Distribution of Fish ................................................................................................. 74
Fish Growth .................................................................................................................... 77
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 8O
LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................... 84

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Classiﬁcation of substrate for initial assessment. .................................................. 8
Table 2. Classiﬁcation of meso-scale habitat types (Hicks and Watson (1985). ................ 9
Table 3. Classiﬁcation of substrate for pebble count assessment (Platts et al. 1983) ....... 11
Table 4. Habitat assessment characteristics - 1995 ........................................................... 17

Table 5. Streambed elevation changes ﬁ'om 1996 to 1997. Negative values indicate
degradation of the streambed; positive values indicate aggradation .............................. 31

Table 6. Gradient from eight stations upstream and one station downstream from
Stronach Dam. The ﬁrst three are from survey sites located in the non-impacted zone,
the last four are located in the impacted zone, and the last is from a site downstrwm

ﬁom the darn ................................................................................................................... 32
Table 7. Flow measurements at survey stations ................................................................ 34
Table 8. 1997 pebble count summary ............................................................................... 43
Table 9. Fish density with 95% conﬁdence intervals by site ............................................ 46
Table 10. Average ﬁsh density by zone shown with standard deviations ......................... 47
Table 11. Rainbow trout annual growth ............................................................................ 53
Table 12. Brown trout annual growth ............................................................................... 56
Table 13. White sucker annual growth ............................................................................. 59

Table 14. 1996 and 1997 Pine River rainbow trout length (mm) at capture compared to
Michigan state averages for stream-dwelling rainbow trout (Laarman et al. 1981). All
ﬁsh were captured during the growing season ................................................................ 62

Table 15. 1996 and 1997 Pine River brown trout length (mm) at capture compared to
Michigan state averages for stream-dwelling brown trout (Laarman et al. 1981). All
ﬁsh were captured during the growing season ................................................................ 62

Table 16. 1997 Pine River white sucker length (mm) at capture compared to state
averages for lake-dwelling white suckers (Laarman et al. 1981). All ﬁsh were captured
during the growing season .............................................................................................. 63

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Stronach Dam on the Pine River ...................................................... 5
Figure 2. Location of study area shown in black ................................................................ 7
Figure 3. Cross-sectional survey sites ............................................................................... 10
Figure 4. Fish abundance sampling sites .......................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Study region delineated into zones by distribution of habitat types .................. 18

Figure 6. Streambed proﬁles of the Logger’s Camp (LC) series for 1996 and 1997.
These transects are located approximately 7.0 km upstream from Stronach Dam, within
the non-impacted zone. *Assumed elevation where USGS datum not available .......... 20

Figure 7. Streambed proﬁles of the Tip of the Tit (TT) series for 1996 and 1997. These
transects are located approximately 6.3 km upstream from Stronach Dam, within the
non-impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not available .............. 21

Figure 8. Streambed proﬁles of the Harley Hill (HH) series for 1996 and 1997. These
transects are located approximately 5.3 km upstream from Stronach Darn, within the
non-impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not available .............. 22

Figure 9. Streambed proﬁles of the Boundary Water (BW) series for 1996 and 1997.
These transects are located approximately 3.5 km upstream from Stronach Dam, within
the impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not available ................ 24

Figure 10. Streambed proﬁles of the Schoﬁeld (SC) series for 1996 and 1997. These
transects are located approximately 2.4 km upstream from Stronach Dam, within the
impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not available ..................... 25

Figure 11. Streambed proﬁles of the Downstream Schoﬁeld (DS) series for 1996 and
1997. These transects are located approximately 1.6 km upstream from Stronach Dam,
within the impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not available ....26

Figure 12. Streambed proﬁles of the Roy’s Run (RR) series for 1996 and 1997. These
transects are located approximately 1.1 km upstream from Stronach Dam, within the
impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not available ..................... 27

Figure 13. Streambed proﬁles of the Stronach Pond (SP) series for 1996 and 1997.

These transects are located within approximately 0.6 km of, and upstream ﬁ'om,
Stronach Dam, within the impacted zone. (Actual elevations from USGS.) ................ 28

viii

Figure 14. Streambed proﬁles of the Below Dam (BD) transect located approximately
100 meters downstream from Stronach Dam, and the Low Bridge (LB) transect located
0.8 km downstream from the dam. Elevations are actual for the BD transect and
assumed for the LB transect ............................................................................................ 30

Figure 15. 1997 substrate particle size distributions at LC and TT transects located 7.0
km and 6.3 km upstream from Stronach Dam, respectively, within the non-impacted
zone ................................................................................................................................. 35

Figure 16. 1997 particle size distributionsat HH transects located approximately 5.3 km
upstream from Stronach Dam, within the non-impacted zone ....................................... 36

Figure 17. 1997 substrate particle size distribution at BW and SC transects located 3.5 km
and 2.4 km upstream from Stronach Dam, respectively, within the impacted zone ...... 37

Figure 18. 1997 substrate particle size distribution at DS and RR transects located 1.6 km
and 1.1 km upstream from Stronach Dam, respectively, within the impacted zone ...... 38

Figure 19. 1997 substrate particle size distribution at SP transects located within 0.6 km
of, and upstream from Stronach Dam, within the impacted zone .................................. 39

Figure 20. 1997 substrate particle size distributions from transects downstream ﬁ'om
Stronach Dam. BD transect is located approximately 100 meters downstream from the
dam and LB is located 0.8 km downstream from the dam ............................................. 40

Figure 21. 1996 and 1997 substrate particle size distribution. A Signiﬁcant difference
was detected between the results of 1996 and 1997 for sites: LC #1, BW #3, RR #3, and
SP #5 ............................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 22. Primary and secondary substrate types in 1996 ............................................... 42

Figure 23. Longitudinal trends in particle size and gradient in the Pine River, 1996 ....... 44

Figure 24. Fish density by zone ........................................................................................ 48
Figure 25. Fish density (: 1 SE) by zone with all three species of trout combined into a
common category ............................................................................................................ 48
Figure 26. 1997 rainbow trout age distribution by zone ................................................... 50
Figure 27. 1997 brown trout age distribution by zone ...................................................... 51
Figure 28. 1997 white sucker age distribution by zone .................................................... 52

ix

Figure 29. Rainbow trout regression showing body-scale relationship pooled from 1996
and 1997 ......................................................................................................................... 54

Figure 30. Rainbow trout incremental growth regressed on length at previous age for
each zone. Zone 1 represents ﬁsh downstream from darn, Zone 2 represents ﬁsh within
the impacted zone, and Zone 3 represents ﬁsh in the non-impacted zone ...................... 55

Figure 31. Brown trout regression Showing body-scale relationship pooled from 1996
and 1997 ......................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 32. Brown trout incremental growth regressed on length at previous age for each
zone. Zone 1 represents ﬁsh downstream ﬁ'om the dam, Zone 2 represents ﬁsh in the
impacted zone, and Zone 3 represents ﬁsh in the non-impacted zone ........................... 58

Figure 33. White sucker regression showing body-ﬁn ray relationship from ﬁsh captured
in 1997 ............................................................................................................................ 60

Figure 34. White sucker incremental growth regressed on length at previous age for each
zone. Zone 1 represents ﬁsh downstream from the dam, Zone 2 represents ﬁsh in the
impacted zone, and Zone 3 represents ﬁsh in the non-impacted zone ........................... 61

Figure 35. 1996 (pre-dam removal) average velocities (cm/sec) with maximum velocities
shown in parentheses ...................................................................................................... 73

Figure 36. Top ﬁgures are the widths (meters) of stream having current velocities <40
cm/sec. Total stream width (meters) is the ﬁgure shown in parentheses (1996
conditions) ...................................................................................................................... 75

INTRODUCTION

More than 68,000 dams obstruct streams in the United States (Haberman 1995).
Many of these are privately owned dams, built 50 to 150 years ago, and fall under the .
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (F ERC). It is FERC’S
responsibility to issue licenses stipulating conditions under which these dams may
operate. These licenses are issued for periods of 30 to 50 years (Bowers and Bowman
1995). Since the average age of dams in the US. is 40 years (Shuman 1995a), licenses
will expire on nearly 500 of these dams by the year 2010 (Bowers and Bowman 1995).
As these dams come up for relicensing, managers look for alternatives in situations where
aging hydroelectric dams are either unsafe or no longer operate efﬁciently. Darn removal
will increasingly become an option as managers look for strategies which promote river
restoration. Despite the decades of research documenting effects that dam placement has
on the morphology and ecology of rivers, the literature is scant with information
regarding effects of dam removal. A planned, staged dam removal offers a unique
opportunity to study the effects on the ﬁsh and the stream’s physical attributes that impact
the biota.

Stronach Dam was built in 1912 as a hydroelectric facility on the Pine River,
Manistee County, Michigan. The Pine is a coldwater stream, valued for its resident
populations of rainbow, brown, and brook trout. Because of logging activities during the
late 1800’s, many of the banks along the river were denuded of vegetation and became
unstable. Consequently, the Pine canies a high bedload of sand. When the dam was

operational, this sand perpetually interfered with the efﬁcient operation of the turbines.

When ﬁrst built, Stronach Darn created a 26 hectare reservoir. The high sand bedload
started ﬁlling in the reservoir almost immediately and attempts to dredge the area
upstream were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the dam was decommissioned as a power-
generating plant in 1953. In the absence of the reservoir, the water ﬂows over the dam
with virtually no retention time in the backwater area.

The removal of Stronach Dam was proposed as part of a F ERC agreement to
relicense the Tippy Dam hydroelectric project on the Manistee River. The decision was
made to remove Stronach Dam in a controlled, staged process. In 1996, a water control
device was installed and the drawdown began. The dam is lowered six inches every three
months, so that the water level at the dam is lowered two feet per year. The removal is
expected to be complete in the year 2003.

Hansen (1971) estimated that the annual discharge of sediment at Stronach Dam is
50,000 tons (70 percent of which is sand; 30 percent silt and clay). Kenny (1968)
suggests that two years’ worth of sediment is held in Stronach’s backwater area. Hansen
(1971) purports that the dam, acting as a sediment trap over the years, has impacted a 2.8
mile stretch of stream upstream from the dam. It is predicted that the removal of
Stronach Dam will cause downcutting of the streambed, exposing a gravel/cobble
substrate in the process. The uncovering of a gravel/cobble substrate will increase
suitable habit for aquatic invertebrates, provide increased cover for ﬁsh and create a more
diverse hydraulic condition favorable for efﬁcient resting and feeding behavior of ﬁsh. It
is anticipated that the increase in gravel/cobble substrate, with it’s associated increased
invertebrate numbers, will ultimately allow greater growth rates and abundance of trout in

sections of the stream presently providing suboptimal habitat conditions. Additional

beneﬁts of removing the dam include restoration of the river to a free-ﬂowing state
attractive to canoeists and other recreationalists, public safety issues, and aesthetic
beneﬁts.

This study is the ﬁrst phase of a long-term project to determine the effects that the
darn’s removal will have on the ecology of the river. Because the darn has impacted a
length of stream equivalent to 3.8 kilometers upstream from the dam, I postulate that an
investigation into the habitat and ﬁsh population upstream from this impacted area will
offer clues regarding the response of ﬁsh to habitat changes resulting from the darn
removal.

The overall, long term goal of this project is to determine if the dam removal, and
the subsequent potential for ﬁsh migration from Tippy Reservoir, will have a Signiﬁcant
impact on salmonid populations in the Pine River. This research will include the study of
the physical environment and the biotic community before the intended changes within
the river occur. In addition to the potential to relate the present ﬁsh assemblage to habitat
conditions, this study will provide the basis for subsequent monitoring of change over the
long term. Even though the actual removal process will only take 5 or 6 years, it may
take several years after the dam is removed for the river channel to reach some
equilibrium state. The rate and extent of the geomorphic changes can only be quantiﬁed
if baseline conditions are measured before changes occur. Likewise, changes in the biotic
communities resulting ﬁom habitat alteration will be detected only if populations are
documented before habitat conditions change.

The three major objectives of this study were to 1) document the current habitat

conditions within the 9.2 kilometer study stretch of the Pine above and below Stronach

Dam, 2) to estimate the abundance of the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown
trout (Salmo trutta), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and white suckers (Catastomus
commersoni) within the study stretch and, 3) to analyze and compare growth rates of
rainbow trout, brown trout, and white suckers, between the impacted zones and the non-

impacted zones of the river.

Study Area

The Pine River is located in Michigan’s lower peninsula and is a tributary to the
Manistee River (Figure 1). The Pine is located in an area of sandy, glacial outwash
moraine and is deeply entrenched into the terrain with many banks elevated more than 30
meters (100 feet) above the water surface. AS is typical of streams in this area, it has a
stable ﬂow dominated by groundwater input. The Pine drains a 686 square-kilometer
(265 square mile) watershed above Stronach Dam (Hansen 1971) and has an annual mean
discharge of 8.18 m3/S (289 cfs) (Blumer et al. 1998) based on 31 years of record at a US.
Geological Survey gaging station located about 13 kilometers upstream from Stronach
Dam.

Stronach Dam is located approximately 5 kilometers upstream from the
convergence of the Pine River with the Manistee River. Another 1.7 kilometers
downstream from where these two rivers meet, lies Tippy Dam. Tippy Dam supports a
400 hectare reservoir whose backwaters extend up into the Pine. Tippy Darn reservoir
sustains a coolwater ﬁshery, including populations of yellow perch (Percaﬂavescens),
northern pike (Esox lucius) and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Currently, these ﬁsh have

access to the Pine River but cannot migrate upstream past Stronach Dam.

q
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Manistee
River

 

Flow

" 7‘
Stronach

Dam Pine
1 kilometer

Figure 1. Location of Stronach Dam on the Pine River

For this study I selected a 9.2 kilometer length of stream encompassing a stretch
from 1.1 kilometers downstream from Stronach Dam to a point 8.2 kilometers upstream
from the dam (Figure 2). The study section is located in a relatively remote area of the
Huron-Manistee National Forest. Forty-two kilometers (twenty-six miles) of the Pine
River have been designated by the United States Congress as a National Scenic River
under the Michigan Rivers Act of 1992. F our kilometers (2 1/2 miles) lie within the
upstream boundary of the study area. AS part of its management plan (Stuber 1994), the
US. Forest Service has implemented a plan to reduce sediment bedload. The removal of
Stronach Dam will complement these efforts.

For sampling purposes, we divided our study area into three different zones: the
downstream zone, the 1.1 kilometer reach downstream from Stronach Dam; the impacted
zone, the 3.8 kilometer stretch directly upstream from Stronach Dam; and the non-

impacted zone, the 4.3 kilometer reach beyond the inﬂuence of the dam.

183 E 950% «93 .356 Mo sou—~84 .N charm

33¢
68823 _ 05m
_..II=_ .

\ END Handgun—m

ocoN
coﬁanE—éoz

     
   

METHODS
Habitat

Initial measurements of stream width and depth were taken during the summer of
1995. Substrate types were visually estimated at this time using a modiﬁed Wentworth
scale (Table 1). These measurements were taken along 278 transects set perpendicular to
the ﬂow at 20 to 50 meter intervals, spanning the entire length of the 9.2 kilometer study
stretch. Additionally, the habitat was delineated into meso-scale habitat types following
criteria developed by Hicks and Watson (1985). Units of stream were categorized as
runs, rifﬂes, pools, or rapids on the basis of the dominant characteristics of water

velocity, depth, substrate, and surface turbulence (Table 2). In addition, a designation of

complex was given where more than one habitat category applied.

Table 1. Classiﬁcation of substrate for initial assessment.

 

 

Particle Size
Substrate Class (diameter in millimeters)
organic debris visually estimated
clay visually estimated
silt visually estimated
sand >silt-2
small gravel 3-10
large gravel 11-100
cobble 101-300
boulder >3 00

 

Table 2. Classiﬁcation of meso-scale habitat types (Hicks and Watson 1985).

 

 

Habitat Depth Appearance of
Unit (meters) Water Surface Substrate
Run 0.5-1.5 Moderate current, Sand or
unbroken water small gravel
Rifﬂe 0.1-1.0 Swiﬁ current, turbulent, Gravel or cobble
broken water
Pool 1.5-4.0 Slow or no current, Sand or clay
unbroken water
Rapid 0.1-1.5 Swiﬁ current, very Large cobble

turbulent, white-water or boulders

Complex 0.1-4.0 Variable Variable

Independent of the 278 transects placed to evaluate habitat on a coarse scale in
1995, 31 permanent survey transect stations were established in 1996 to measure
streambed elevation before and during the course of the dam’s removal. Twenty-nine of
these transects were placed upstream from the dam, in series of three to six transects, and
two of them were placed downstream from the dam (Figure 3). These Sites were
measured again in 1997, aﬁer the darn’s removal had been initiated. Elevations were
assumed for all transects except for the six transects proximal to the dam. I was able to
tie these six transects into USGS datum allowing actual elevation to be determined at
these Sites. The streambed proﬁles developed ﬁom this survey will be used to detect
changes in channel morphology over the long term of this study. Discharge was
measured in cubic feet/second at one of the survey transects within each series in 1996

and 1997 using a Marsh-McBimey Model 201 portable current meter.

.moxm Abram 238308-380 .m onE
San noaaobm 88m Asa—v 3:5me

 

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D W_ _W

W m a e m a. W m N a o _ m

m ocoN m

m “Banana—-52 U u H

m ocoN g
v i — \- - n 3 “r— H H

:3 H
. 0C0
- . N

 

 

 

 

 

32m . . I E85533
on .E. 23 : E M
an! Um . I . . n
we _.. J
mm _: _
«as... E... a 3 mm
a:— 53 .. a. an
as... gouaoamumm m:
=3— ...»3— u 5— q
29:23 3.2.325 .. m:
362% .. Om 8&0
58.3 Dana—=5 u 3: gunﬁgﬂm
E: SE: n a:
2... 25.. a: u .E

9.30 shunned u 01—

10

A pebble count, as described by Kondolf and Li (1992), was done at one transect
within each series in 1996, and at each transect in 1997. The pebble count involved
randomly selecting and measuring 100 streambed particles along a transect. Substrate
particle size was categorized at a ﬁner scale than it was for the initial habitat assessment
done in 1995 (Table 3). A chi-square analysis was performed to detect differences in
particle size distribution at each site that had been sampled in 1996 and 1997.

Additionally, photo documentation of each transect and it’s associated
banks were catalogued and are archived in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at

Michigan State University.

Table 3. Classiﬁcation of substrate for pebble count assessment (Platts et al. 1983).

 

 

Particle size Classiﬁcation
Substrate Class (diameter in millimeters) Code
medium boulder 512-1,024 13
small boulder 256-512 12
large cobble 128-256 11
small cobble 64-128 10
very coarse gravel 32-64 9
coarse gravel 16-32 8
medium gravel 8-16 7
ﬁne gravel 4-8 6
very ﬁne gravel 2-4 5
sand 0062-2000 4
Silt 0004-0062 3
clay 0.00034-0.004 2
organic 1

 

11

Fish Abundance

Abundance of trout and white suckers was estimated at 10 sites during the
summer of 1997. Block nets were placed at the upstream and downstream boundary to
enclose each sampling site. A Smith-Root 17-foot CataRaﬁ was used with a multi-pass
depletion method of sampling. At least three successive electroﬁshing passes in a single
day were made at each site. Ten Sites (Figure 4), totaling 207 meters downstream from
the dam and 2,057 meters upstream from the dam, were sampled within block nets. Sites
ranged in length from 75 meters to 428 meters. Microﬁsh (Van Deventer and Platts
1985), a software program using the Bumham maxirnum-likelihood estimator (Van
Deventer and Platts 1983), was used to calculate abundance estimates and their
conﬁdence intervals. Abundance estimates were converted to density estimates
(ﬁsh/hectare) using measurement taken of lengths and widths of the river at each site.
Analysis of ﬁsh abundance was performed using an analysis of variance (AN OVA)
according to the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Institute 1988) on untransformed white
sucker densities and log-transformed trout densities to compare density between the three

habitat zOnes.

l2

.moxm mum—Q83 356.5% ﬁrm .v 053m

Edn— noncobm Scum Asa—v Dogma

 

 

 

 

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _
_ _ _ _ n _ m H m
w s e m E m N a a a W
oaoN m w
3835.32 m ocoN
. 883::

30E $3 53'? h g oaoN

zoo.— ” m
' anbmc30a H
53m 753m .50! H u

Boom 8.3 u Him 232 t u

.538: 9:8 $533 u 53 5.5
58%..ch 980 {933 u 290.. .53 F
538: .853 gem n 53m 20mg .
50558 an? 5958 n 29.6 a

 

       

 

S38: ”.2053 u 5cm

:3. 9.8.x u 235.
25.. 528m n 92.5 8mm
saga: ”warm 33 u .55 sou—85m

:aohmgoo owvtm 33 u 29:

iv

A

13

Fish Growth

Trout and suckers were captured for age determination and growth analysis during
the summer of 1996 using a backpack electroﬁshing unit, during the spring of 1997 using
fyke nets, and during the summer of 1997 using an inﬂatable electroﬁshing boat. The
electroﬁshing equipment consisted of a 12 V battery powered backpack unit made by
University of Wisconsin Instrumentation Systems Center, model ABP-450-1QT. This
unit was set to deliver pulsed DC (10% duty cycle) at 250-450 V. The electroﬁshing boat
was a Smith Root-17 CataRaft set to deliver pulsed DC (40% duty cycle) at 50—500 V.
Total length (TL) was measured for each ﬁsh and recorded to the nearest millimeter.
Scales were taken from the trout and pectoral ﬁn rays were taken from the white suckers.

ﬁainbow Trout and Brown Trout. Scales from rainbow trout and brown trout
were mounted between glass slides and were analyzed using a magniﬁed image projected
onto a digitizing tablet. Radii and interannular distances were measured to the nearest
.001 millimeter on three to ﬁve scales (or as many as were necessary to distinguish a
consistent pattern in annuli distance) ﬁom each ﬁsh. Distance was measured in
millimeters from the focus to each annulus and to the edge of the scale.

White Suckers. A Minitom precision cutting machine was used to section white
sucker ﬁn rays. Transverse sections of various widths were taken from the base of the
ﬁrst ﬁn ray from each sucker. F in rays were coated with clear epoxy in instances where
the ray was not rigid enough to withstand the blade of the saw. At least three sections
were taken from each sucker; more were taken when necessary to get a clear image of

armuli. Sections were mounted on glass slides and coated with glycerin. An Optimas

14

imaging system was used to measure the distance from the focus to each annulus and to
the edge of the ﬁn ray (to the nearest .001 millimeter).

Growth Analysis. A linear regression was performed to obtain an equation
relating total length to scale/ray radius. The y-intercept from this equation was used to
back-calculate lengths at previous ages for each ﬁsh using the F raser-Lee formula,

L = k + [(Lc-k) Si/Sc]
where k=length at inital scale/ray formation, Lc= length at capture, Sr—‘scale increment
length, and Sc=scale radius (Francis 1990). From these back-calculated lengths, growth
increments were determined for the year 1996 from ﬁsh captured in 1997 and for the year
1995 from ﬁsh captured in 1996.

A general linear regression was performed to determine if length at previous age
could be a factor affecting ﬁsh growth. Differences in annual incremental growth
between the three different habitat zones were evaluated with analysis of covariance
(AN COVA), using annual incremental growth as the response variable, habitat zone as
the main effect, and length at previous age as the covariate. All analyses were performed
on untransformed data according to the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Institute 1988).

Signiﬁcance tests were performed at an alpha of 0.05.

15

RESULTS
Habitat

In categorizing the river into mesohabitats, most (73%) of the study area was
classiﬁed as runs having an average depth of 0.86 meters, with sand being the
predominant substrate (Table 4). Fiﬁeen percent of the study site is classiﬁed as rifﬂes,
which are mostly located upstream from the inﬂuence of the darn (only 0.8% of the rifﬂes
appear within the impacted zone). Rifﬂes have a mean depth of 0.66 meters and the
substratum is most often composed of large gravel. Pools and rapids occur less
frequently and each category occupies three percent of the study site. Pools are on
average 1.56 meters deep with a sandy bottom. Rapids in the Pine have a mean depth of
0.81 meters and the substrate in these rapids is most commonly boulders and cobble. Six
percent of the study stretch is classiﬁed as complex, all of which occurs upstream from
the dam’s inﬂuence, with a gravel streambed and a mean depth of 0.90 meters.
Additional analyses suggest that the complex habitat consists primarily of riﬁles (48.4%),
combined with runs (29.5%) and pools (22.1%). On average the Pine is nineteen meters
wide throughout the study site. The river narrows where rapids occur (mean width = 17
meters). The distribution of these mesohabitat types and their proximity to the dam are
visually displayed in Figure 5. Figure 5 also shows how the study region was divided into
three distinct stretches based on the level of impact the darn has had on the diversity of

habitat as detected from the mesohabitat delineation.

16

Table 4. Habitat assessment characteristics - 1995.

 

 

Total Percent Mean Mean
Habitat Length Length of Width Depth Primary
Type (meters) Study Area (meters) (metersL Substrate
Run 6734 73 19 .86 Sand
Rifﬂe 1409 15 19 .66 Large gravel
P00] 239 3 19 1.56 Sand
Rapid 277 3 17 .81 Boulder/Cobble
Complex 570 6 19 .90 Large ggvel

 

l7

.396 “833 no now—55% .3 8:8 85 3305—28 comma.— boBm .m 8:me
.55 noun—ohm 88m $55 3ng

 

 

 

_ _ _ m _ _ . _W
a h omvw m N _ g 3

25M 38387.8 Z

    

. ..
2...... l==\ H ocoN
:.o ” cognac:

I'VE. %__._;k.:__. Q.
gemnm -. Jug” 3::

 
      
  

m ocoN g
Foobm=30ﬁ

D Eon

88—an0 _=__ 053 .55

2.5 - .3 580%

 

18

Proﬁles showing streambed elevations for each individual transect surveyed are
provided in Figures 6 through 14. Maximum elevation changes for each site are reported
in Table 5. Some of the changes (particularly those at sites proximal to the dam, e.g. SP
#’s 1-5 and BD #1) are probably related to the initiation of the darn removal. The proﬁles
developed from the sites in the non-impacted zone (Figures 6, 7 and 8), do not show large
changes in streambed elevation. Many of the changes in streambed morphology that were
observed (e. g. LC #2, LC #3, 'IT #1) in the non-impacted zone could be linked to
naturally occurring events such as newly fallen trees. The proﬁles of transects from sites
in the impacted zone (Figures 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) also show little change in streambed
elevation with the exception of those transects most proximal to the dam (SP #2, SP #3,
SP #4, SP #5). These transects show some degradation in streambed elevation which in
some cases may be due to the lowering of the dam, and in other cases (SP #5) is
attributable to construction of the water control structure and excavation of the soil in that
area. Downstream from the darn, measurements suggest that the streambed is aggrading
(Figure 14), particularly at the transect directly downstream from the dam.

Gradients from the eight stations upstream and one station downstream from
Stronach Dam are reported in Table 6. These were determined from the change in water
surface elevation from the upstream-most transect at a station to the downstream-most
transect at the same station. Gradients are highest (> 2m/km) at sites upstream from the
dam’s inﬂuence, and lowest (< lm/km) at sites within the impacted zone and downstream

from the dam.

l9

 

 

 

 

.. LC #1

E

‘E

o

'3

>

2

m

C

85 I I I I I I I I I .
0 10 20 3O 4O 50 60 7O 80 90 100
blot-nee (foot)

.5

o

o
L.

‘0
0!

 

“Elevation (foot)

8

 

 

 

0 10 20 30 4O 50 60 7O 80 90 100

 

 

 

 

0 1o 20 so 40 Due-"53. (“’60 70 so 90 100
Figure 6. Streambed proﬁles of the Logger's Camp (LC) series for 1996 and
1997. These transects are located approximately 7.0 km upstream from Stronach
Dam, within the non-impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum

not available.

20

s
:I
3

‘Elovatlon (foot)
8 8

 

 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DIstanco (foot)

100 4'- TT #2

 

 

 

 

85 I I I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dlshneo (foot)
100 "" rr #3

CD
01

 

*EIOVItlon (foot)

W ....1996

 

 

90 ._
1997
85 I I I I I I I I E I
O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 7O 80 90 100

DIstanco (foot)

Figure 7. Streambed proﬁles of the Tip of the Tit (Tl') series for 1996 and 1997.
These transects are located approximately 6.3 km upstream from Stronach Dam,
within the non-impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not
available.

21

HH#1

 

 

90 __

85 I I I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 4O Mama (foot) 60 70 80 90 100

105 -

HH#2

 

*Elovatlon (foot) __
(0
GI

 

 

90 -~
85 I I I L L I I I 1
0 1O 20 30 40 5O 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (foot)
105 -I
HH #3

 

 

 

 

O 1 O 20 30 70 80 90 100

40 50 6O
DIstaneo (foot)

Figure 8. Streambed proﬁles of the Harley Hill (HH) series for 1996 and 1997.
These transects are located approximately 5.3 km upstream from Stronach Dam,
within the non-impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not
available.

22

105 ~—

HH“

§

‘Elovation (foot)
co
0|

 

 

 

 

 

90
85 I I I I I I I I I
O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
chtanoo (foot)
105 -_
HH #5
100 -~

 

'EImtIon (foot)
8

 

8

 

 

85 I I
O 10 20 30 4O 5O 60 7O 80 90 100
Dlstaneo (foot)
105 [
HH #8
100 '1‘

E'

g 95 -~ //

l“ W: ‘ - - . 1996
9° ‘* __1997

85 i i L 1 L
r T T I I

 

 

4o 50 60 7o 80 90 100
DIstanco (foot)

Figure 8 (cont'd.). Streambed proﬁles of the Harley Hill (HH) series for 1996 and
1997. These transects are located approximately 5.3 km upstream from Stronach
Dam, within the non-impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum
not available.

23

100 1

CD
at

 

 

‘Elovatlon (foot)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dlstancoﬂoot)
1 ._
°° awn
a ..
£95~~ "
c l
i W:
FQOI "
85 I I I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dlstancoﬂoot)
105» awn
3...-
c
8
g 95»
g
I“
90- _1997
85 I I I I I I I I

 

0 10 20 30 70 80 90 100

‘0 magma «3'3»

Figure 9. Streambed proﬁles of the Boundary Water (BW) series for 1996 and
1997. These transects are located approximately 3.5 km upstream from Stronach
Dam, within the impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not
available.

24

‘°° ‘ sc #1

‘0
0|

 

'Elovatlon (foot)

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85 I I IL I T l T I If
0 1O 20 30 4O 50 60 7O 80 90
Distance (foot)
100 1 sc #2
.3...
C
i k V
l“ 90 .- '
85 I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
DIstanco (foot)
100 .. SC #3
.3... .
I:
i
F 90 ”I w. . 1996
_1997
85 i Y i i 1 I §
0 10 20 30 60 70 80 90

40 50
Distance (foot)

Figure 10. Streambed proﬁles of the Schoﬁeld (SC) series for 1996 and 1997.
These transects are located approximately 2.4 km upstream from Stronach Darn,
within the impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not

available.

25

105 ..
DS #1

 

‘Elovatlon (foot)

 

 

 

90 I "—
85 I I I Y T I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
matinee (foot)
105 ..
DS #2

 

 

 

0 20 40 80 80 100 120
Distance (foot)
105 «-
us #3
100 ~

‘0
0!
l

'Elevatlon (foot)

8

 

 

 

85 I I I I
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DIstanco (foot)

Figure 11. Streambed proﬁles of the Downstream Schoﬁeld (DS) series for 1996
and 1997. These transects are located approximately 1.6 km upstream from
Stronach Dam, within the impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS
datum not available.

26

1

*Elevatlon (feet)

00«

‘0
(J'l
L
I

(D
O
%

 

 

85

100 ~~

*Elevatlon (feet)
8

100 ‘-

‘Elevation (feet)

 

8

l
T

 

(0
0|

8

 

 

60 80 100 120 140
Distance (feet)

20 4O

RR#2

 

 

L
l

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance (feet)

RR#3

 

. 1996
1997

 

85

20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Dletance (feet)

Figure 12. Streambed proﬁles of the Roy's Run (RR) series for 1996 and 1997.
These transects are located approximately 1.1 km upstream from Stronach Dam,
within the impacted zone. *Assumed elevations where USGS datum not
available.

27

720 «—
SP #1
715 ..

710 '1

705 --

Elevation (feet)

700 4~

 

 

695 I I I E I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Distance (feet)

720 ..

SP#2

N

—l

U"
L
I

N
_s
0

Elevation (feet)

 

 

 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Distance (feet)

SP#3

(foot)

Elevation
V
0
UI

700 ._

 

 

 

695 I I I I I I I
100 120 140

Figure 13. Streambed proﬁles of the Stronach Pond (SP) series for 1996 and
1997. These transects are located within approximately 0.6 km of, and upstream
from, Stronach Darn, within the impacted zone. (Actual elevations from USGS.)

28

725 -_

720 -_ SP #4

(feet)
N
a

 

 

 

 

 

5 710
E
m 705 -
700 ..
695 I I I I I I I
0 20 4O 60 80 100 120 140
Dletenee (feet)
725 -.

720 ~-

N
.5
Cl

 

Elevation (feet)
3
O

 

 

 

 

705 I
700 «~
695 I l l I I 'L I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance (feet)

Figure 13 (cont'd.). Streambed proﬁles of the Stronach Pond (SP) series for 1996
and 1997. These transects are located within approximately 0.6 km of, and

upstream from, Stronach Dam, within the impacted zone. (Actual elevations
from USGS.)

29

710 I
BD #1

N
O
0!

Elevation (feet)
N
O
O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

690-
685 I I I I I I I I I I I I I.
O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
DIetaneeUeet)
102 ~—
97 I
5 92 I
E l
2 T
I.“ 87 1
1996
82+
1997
77 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

DIetence (feet)

Figure 14. Streambed proﬁles of the Below Dam (BD) transect located
approximately 100 meters downstream from Stronach Dam, and the Low Bridge
(LB) transect located 0.8 km downstream from the dam. Elevations are actual for
the BD transect and assumed for the LB transect.

30

Table 5. Streambed elevation changes from 1996 to 1997. Negative values indicate
degradation of the streambed; positive values indicate aggradation.

 

 

Habitat Maximum Elevation
Zone Site Change (feet)

Non-impacted LC #1 0.23
Non-impacted LC #2 0.72
Non-impacted LC #3 2.19
Non-impacted TT #1 1.28
Non-impacted TT #2 -0.36
Non-impacted TI“ #3 0.08
Non-impacted HH #1 -0.04
Non-impacted HH #2 -0.13
Non-impacted HH #3 -0.06
Non-impacted HH #4 -0.09
Non-impacted HH #5 -0.07
Non-impacted HH #6 -0.07
Impacted BW #1 -0.07
Impacted BW #2 -0.01
Impacted BW #3 -1.15
Impacted SC #1 -1.25
Impacted SC #2 -0.44
Impacted SC #3 -0.22
Impacted DS #1 -0.03
Impacted DS #2 -1.24
Impacted DS #3 -0.45
Impacted RR #1 -0.44
Impacted RR #2 -0.39
Impacted RR #3 -0.88
Impacted SP #1 -1.60
Impacted SP #2 -2.29
Impacted SP #3 -1 .93
Impacted SP #4 -0.57
Impacted SP #5 -5.49
Downstream BD #1 1.46
Downstream LB #1 0.68

 

31

Table 6. Gradient from eight stations upstream and one station downstream from
Stronach Dam. The ﬁrst three are from survey sites located in the non-impacted zone,
the next four are located in the impacted zone, and the last is from a site downstream
from the dam.

 

 

Site Gradient Q/o) Gradient (m/km) Gradient (ﬁ/mile)
LC 0.21 2.14 11.28

TT 0.26 2.59 13.67

HH 0.22 2.20 11.61

BW 0.09 0.92 4.85

SC 0.06 0.64 3.39

DS 0.04 0.39 2.07

R 0.07 0.67 3.54

SP 0.04 0.41 2.15

LB 0.04 0.40 2.11

 

32

Flow measurements taken at 10 different transects during June of 1996 and July of
1997 are reported in Table 7. The average 1996 ﬂow (273 cfs or 7.73 m3/s) that I
measured was 10% greater than the average discharge (248 cfs or 7.02 m3/s) reported for
the Pine River in July, while the average 1997 ﬂow (268 cfs or 7.59 m3/s) measured was
4% less than the average discharge (278 cfs or 7.87 m3/s) reported for the month of June
(Blumer et al. 1998). Flow was relatively greater in 1996 than in 1997 due to elevated
rainfall in 1996.

Results of the pebble count analysis are shown graphically in Figures 15 through
20. Large substrate particle sizes, such as boulders, generally occur only in the non-
impacted zone as seen in Figures 15 and 16. Gravel-size substrate particles are more
prevalent in the non-impacted zone and in the upstream-most stretches of the impacted
zone (Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18). Sand, which is present throughout the study section,
becomes the dominant substrate type at sites near the dam (Figure 19) and at sites
downstream from the dam (Figure 20). Results of the pebble count analysis from the 10
sites evaluated in 1996 are shown along side 1997 results at the same 10 sites in Figure
21. A chi-square analysis suggests a signiﬁcant difference in the distribution of particle
size at sites LC #1, BW #3, RR #3, and SP #5. Additional results, displaying dominant
and subdominant substrate type at each transect, are given in Figure 22 for 1996 and in
Table 8 for 1997.

Mean particle size of the substrate shows a general decrease in size where the

gradient of the stream channel also decreases (Figure 23).

33

Table 7. Flow measurements at survey stations.

 

 

Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)
Site 1996 1997
LC 261 244
(m3/s) (7.39) (6.91)
TT 251 259
(m3/s) (7.11) (7.33)
HH 285 270
(m3/s) (8.07) (7.65)
13w 268 263
(m3/s) (7.59) (7.45)
so 281 263
(m3/s) (7.96) (7.45)
D8 281 298
(m3/s) (7.96) (8.44)
R 261 277
(m3/s) (7.39) (7.84)
SP #1 277 280
(m3/s) (7.84) (7.93)
S? #5 259 275
(m3/s) (7.33) (7.79)
LB 309 253
(m3/s) (8.75) (7.16)

 

34

 

 

 

 

 

1:: LC #1 t: 11' #1 Substrate Code
no 0 w 4* 1 = organic
70 I 70 I 2 = Clay
e0 .I on 0.00024-0.004mm
so .. so .. 3 = silt
‘° ** ‘° .. 0.04-0.062mm
3° " 3° ‘* 4 = sand
’°" I I ’° ‘“ 0.062-2.000mm
1: ‘2 5 = very ﬁne gavel
12345078010111213 12345018010111213 24111111
100 .. - ,0, 1, 6 = ﬁne gavel
eo .. LC #2 ,0 0 TT #2 4-8mm
'0 0 so I 7 = medium gravel
7° " 7° I 8-16mln
8 = coarse gavel
l6-32mm
9 = very coarse gavel
.. 32-64mm
.. I I I I I 10 = small cobble
1 2 3 4 5 0 7 I I 10 11 12 13 J ‘ 2 3 ‘ 5 g 1 . g '0 11 12 13 64-128
11 = large cobble
‘°° * ‘°°‘ 128-256mm
3] LC #3 :j' W n 12 = small boulder

,, 4; ,, ,_ 256-512mm
.. 13 = medium boulder

 

 

 

O
12345678910111213 12345510910111!”

Figure 15. 1997 substrate particle size distributions at LC and TT transects
located 7 .0 km and 6.3 km upstream ﬁom Stronach Dam, respectively, within
the non-impacted zone.

35

HH #1

 

3
L L L A A A A A A
V r v V v I f f I

12345070910111213

HH#2

 

12345070910111213

,0 HH#3

12345070010111213

1&-

I
.L

HI-l#4

 

12345070010111213

HH#5

 

12345070010111!”

HHﬂ

 

4-
o

12345070910111213

Substrate Code

1 = organic

2 = clay
0.00024-0.004mm

3 = silt
0.04-0.062mm

4 = sand
0.062-2.000mm

5 = very ﬁne gavel
2-4mm

6 = ﬁne gavel
4-8mm

7 = medium gavel
8-16mm

8 = coarse gavel
16-32mm

9 = very coarse gavel
32-64mm

10 = small cobble
64-128

11 = large cobble
128-256mm

12 = small boulder
256.512mm

13 = medium boulder

Figure 16. 1997 particle size distributions at HH transects located
approximately 5.3 km upstream from Stronach Dam, within the non-impacted

20116.

36

§
§

 

 

.0 ., aw #1 .0 I sc #1
.0 .. ,0 0 Substrate Code
70 4. mi 1 = organic
°° I °° I 2 = clay
5° " 5° I 0.00024-0.004mm
4o 1. 40 .L _ .
3° 0 3° 0 3 - Silt
20» I I m .. 0.04-0.062mm
104i 101» Illlll 4=sand
0‘1“’3‘5078010111213 0412345073010111213 0062-2000111!“
5 = very ﬁne gavel
100 100 q—
.0 aw #2 .0 1, sc #2 24mm
so .0 r 6 = ﬁne gavel
10 70 i 4-8mm
°° '0 I 7 = medium gavel
5° 5° " 8-16mm
40 4o ..
3° so .1 8 = coarse gavel
20 ,0 r l6-32mm
‘° 104’ I I I I I I 9 = very coarse gavel
° °- 32-64mm

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 0 1o 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 g 1 a 9 1o 11 12 13
10 = small cobble
100 1. oo 1.
m swans L, 1. sc #3 54'1”
w 0 w 0 11 = large cobble
70 -» 7o .. 128'256mm
so + co 1. 12 = small boulder
: j: I 256—512mm
so 0 w 0 13 = medium boulder
20 1- 20 WL
10 <> 10 i
o 4 o l—ALlll-IHW
1 2 3 4 5 0 1 I a 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 o 1 a 9 1o 11 12 13

Figure 17. 1997 substrate particle size distribution at BW and SC transects
located 3.5 km and 2.4 km upstream from Stronach Dam, respectively, within
the impacted zone.

37

 

70 1»

 

not

A
T r Y Y Y Y

A A
1

 

DS#1

<1-
'0 <1-
0 4-—A—I—I—|—|-L—V——

12345078910111213

DS#2

1234507IO10111213

DS#3

12345078910111213

 

.01 RR #1
w .>
70 1
go 1.
50 r.
40 ..
30 o
20 it
10 1»
o .

12345070010111213

 

.0.. RR #2
.o .,
7o ..
00 .L
so .1
40 ..
30 ..
20 ..
10 <>
0 .

123‘5070010111213

.0 RR”

88888

10

0
12345078910111213

Substrate Code

1 = organic

2 = clay
0.00024-0.004mm

3 = silt
0.04-0.062mm

4 = sand
0.062-2.000mm

5 = very ﬁne gavel
2-4mm

6 = ﬁne gavel
4-8mm

7 = medium gavel
8-16mm

8 = coarse gavel
16-32mm

9 = very coarse gavel
32—64mm

10 = small cobble
64-128

11 = large cobble
128-256mm

12 = small boulder
256-512mm

13 = medium boulder

Figure 18. 1997 substrate particle size distributions at DS and RR transects
located 1.6 km and 1.1 km upstream from Stronach Dam, respectively, within
the impacted zone.

38

100 100 r
,0 SP #1 oo .. SP #4
so so »
7o 70
so
so
so
so
20
10
o

 

12345073310111213 12345670010111213

100 v 1” 1'
90 0 SP #2 90 .. SP #5

30 I go ..

70 0 70 0

I so a

so 0

4o .1

so ..

20 4.

 

 

 

12345073910111213 12345078010111213

.011 SP#3

 

 

12345078910111213

 

 

Substrate Code

1 = organic

2 = clay
0.00024-0.004mm

3 = silt
0.04-0.062mm

4 = sand
0.062-2.000mm

5 = very ﬁne gavel
2-4mm

6 = ﬁne gavel
4-8mm

7 = medium gavel
8-16mm

8 = coarse gavel
l6-32mm

9 = very coarse gavel
32-64mm

10 = small cobble
64-128

11 = large cobble
128-256mm

12 = small boulder
256-512mm

13 = medium boulder

Figure 19. 1997 substrate particle size distributions at SP transects located
within 0.6 km of, and upstream from Stronach Dam, within the impacted zone.

39

,0 I: 80 #1

 

1 2 3 4 5 O 7 8 O

LB#‘1

 

 

 

AAAAAAAAAA
v r v r rrrrrr

1 2 3 4 5 O 7 8 9 1O 11 12 13

Substrate Code

1 = organic

2 = clay
0.00024-0.004mm

3 = silt
0.04-0.062mm

4 = sand
0.062-2.000mm

5 = very ﬁne gavel
2-4mm

6 = ﬁne gavel
4-8mm

7 = medium gavel
8-16mm

8 = coarse gavel
16-32mm

9 = very coarse gavel
32-64mm

10 = small cobble
64-128

11 = large cobble
128-256mm

12 = small boulder
256-512mm

13 = medium boulder

Figure 20. 1997 substrate particle size distributions from transects downstream
from Stronach Dam. BD transect is located approximately 100 meters
downstream from the dam and LB is located 0.8 km downstream from the dam.

LC#1

saass's'

40 P<.005*

20
10

12345078910111213

 

100

so "#2

00

70

60

50

1° P=O.64

30

20

‘IO

0
1234507.."1111213

100 ..

so» HH#1

80¢

700

000

504»

w" P=0.08

30‘1-

2o+ I I

10“?

0+

12345618010111213

-‘

«33388883888

A A A A A A A A A
v Y Y Y Y r Y Y

A A
Y I

BW#3

P<.005*

 

12345073910111213

u.

«38888883888

SC#2

P=0.78

12345670910111213

08131

d
3888
:AJA

I P=O.20

4»
1D
1»
.

12345070010111213

88888

 

a
CO

‘

o3388883888

P<.005*

1234507II10111213

a.

o8888883888

SP1“

4+

P=0.99

 

12345070010111213

100
.0 3m
00
7O
00
50
w P<.005*
30
20
10
O
12345073910111213

-‘

o3388883888
';:¢:¢¢:¢:

"F

    

 

12345678010111213

4»
1h

‘-

.1

Substrate Code

1 = organic

2 = clay
0.00024-0.004mm

3 = silt
0.04-0.062mm

4 = sand
0.062-2.000mm

5 = very ﬁne gavel
2-4mrn

6 = ﬁne gavel
4-8mm

7 = medium gavel
8-l6mm

8 = coarse gavel
16-32mm

9 = very coarse gavel
32-64mm

10 = small cobble
64-128

11 = large cobble
128-256mm

12 = small boulder
256-512mm
13 = medium boulder

1
- 1997

Figure 21. 1996 and 1997 substrate particle size distribution. A sigiiﬁcant
difference was detected between the results of 1996 and 1997 for sites: LC #1,

BW #3, RR #3. and SP #5.

41

.82 a 8gb agape bases 23 SEE .NN 2%;

88 :885 Ben 33 8.55

 

m N. o w v m N _ o ~
L m _ _ _. _ w w ._ _
ocoN ESE—5-52 ozoN ocoN
A v A v m 363:: Raobmccsonm
a a W 5 . .

S c a E

W _ 5 m
u a a m
:IV .6) \NF H 3 Am a E
so; Cole} 5 a @W n
o.— 5 25 J. v m
m: Um (\- H g M
3339.35.633 5.851.: I v n
35533 52...... :2... u a m9 ~5— ’ l id

€53.35 9.28 or: u : mm _ “
35333 2.38 =3. u 2 mm P
ASHES 15.—u 8.33 .02, u a
3.33%: .25..» one-.3 u a ma—
Aaasé .25» 52.3... u a
€33. .2!» 2.... n e
Ears as...» 2.: E: n m 8mm
Aaacsdaae 2.: u v nomaobm
€585.35. as u n
Aaa§.§§.e 3... u N
emu-NE n _
85 8.33.5

42

Table 8. 1997 pebble count summary.

 

 

 

Dominant Substrate Subdominant Substrate
Site Category Catﬁcﬂ
LC #1 11 10
LC #2 4 8
LC #3 4 1]
TT #1 4 11
TT #2 10 9
TT #3 10 9
HH #1 9 10
HH #2 9 10
HH #3 2 9
HH #4 9 6
HH #5 9 10
HH #6 9 10
BW #1 6 7
BW #2 4 8
BW #3 8 6
SC #1 6 8
SC #2 8 7
SC #3 4 7
DS #1 6 7
DS #2 4 6
DS #3 4 6
RR #1 6 7
RR #2 4 6
RR #3 6 7
SP #1 7 6
SP #2 4 6
SP #3 4 5
SP #4 4 6
SP #5 4 3
BD #1 4 6
LB #1 4 3
Substrate Code
1 = organic 7 = medium gavel (8-16mm)
2 = clay (0.00024-0.004mm) 8 = coarse gavel (16-32mm)
3 = silt (0.04-0.062mm) 9 = very coarse gavel (32-64mm)
4 = sand (0.062-2.000mm) 10 = small cobble (64-128mm)
5 = very ﬁne gavel (2-4mm) 11 = large cobble (128-256mm)
6 = ﬁne gavel (4-8mm) 12 = small boulder (256-512mm)

13 = medium boulder (5 12-1 ,024mm)

43

30919319 %

.82 .55 can 2: 5 228% Ba Ba 22:8 5 38a @3223 .mm 2%:

Ann: .55 £22.25 Beam 83.532 353...:—

 

 

 

 

 

 

h o n v m w-
o a .. n n o
.r or
mod 1
1 cm
1.. on
rd 1. .d
B
1 CV m
D.
a
mﬁo . r- on S
n
a
Eo€ﬁw$----_uz: .- co \m)
w
No . oﬁm o_o_taq+ (
-- on
rt ow
mmd .
1 om
nd

 

44

Fish Abundance

Fish densities (number/hectare) and their associated conﬁdence intervals for
rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout, and white suckers are reported for each of the ten
sampling sites in Table 9. The density estimates in each of the three zones were
combined to determine mean density of each species by zone. These ﬁgures along with
associated standard deviations are reported in Table 10 and graphically in Figure 24.
Comparison of ﬁsh abundance between the three zones shows mean density of brown
trout increases in the direction from downstream to upstream (Table 10); mean density of
brook trout also increases; mean density of rainbow trout is higher upstream from the
dam than downstream, but densities are similar between the impacted and non-impacted
zone; and white sucker density decreases (Table 10) in the direction from downstream to
upstream.

Another comparison was made between the three zones aﬁer combining the three
species of trout into a single category (Figure 25). The trend becomes more apparent with
the trout gouped together. Numbers of trout steadily increase in an upstream direction,
while numbers of white suckers decrease. An analysis of variance (AN OVA) was
performed on log-transformed data to determine if trout densities were statistically
different between the three habitat zones. When trout are combined into a common
category, differences in trout densities were detected between the three zones at a
signiﬁcance level of p=.0548. An AN OVA performed on white suckers concluded that

white sucker density between the three zones is signiﬁcantly different (p=.001).

45

Table 9. 1997 ﬁsh density with 95% conﬁdence intervals by site.

 

 

Rainbow Brook Trout Brown Trout White Sucker
Site Zone Trout number/ha number/ha number/ha
number/ha

SBEE Non-impacted 62 88 40 0

CI (57, 84) (84, 106) (39, 49) -
LCUP Non-impacted 6 25 19 22

CI (5, 69) (20, 67) (17, 22) (20, 25)
LCDN Non-impacted O 8 l6 17

CI - (15, 47) (15, 30)
BWUP Non-impacted 14 28 53 3

CI (12, 15) (27, 30) (50, 62) -
BWDN Impacted 20 1 1 21 44

CI (15, 37) (10, 22) (20, 27) (27, 89)
SCUP Impacted 27 l 3 3 8 48

CI (27, 32) (12, 15) (37, 47) (47, 52)
RRUN Impacted 8 3 61 37

CI (7, 20) - (20, 378) (37, 42)
SPND Impacted 24 8 19 l l 8

CI (20, 37) (7, 10) (17, 25) (84, 153)
LBUP Downstream 0 O 20 154

CI - (17, 20) (96, 319)
LBDN Downstream 9 O 4 160

CI - - - (108, 286)

 

46

Table 10. Average ﬁsh density by zone shown with standard deviations.

 

Rainbow Trout Brook Trout Brown Trout White Sucker

 

Zone number/ha number/ha number/ha number/ha
Non-impacted 19 36 39 8
SD 28.0 34.8 17.6 10.7
Impacted 21 9 30 70
SD 8.4 4.4 19.6 37.6
Downstream 5 O 1 1 157
SD 6. l 0 10.5 4.2

 

47

Brown Trout

 

 

 

 

 

200
..
RainbowTrout
Q) '.j.j.:
a 150 ._ k BrookTrout
8
i 100 q? - White Sucker
m
E

 

 

Downstream Impacted Non-impacted
from Dam Zone Zone

Figure 24. Fish density by zone.

200"

% Trout
150.. - White Sucker

1001

F ish/Hectare

' 7

’ 11”

50 ..

 

 

o W
DO ' ' nstrearn Impacted Zone Non-impacted
from Dam Zone

 

Figure 25. Fish density (1 1 SE) by zone with all three species of trout
combined into a common category.

48

Relative age distribution of rainbow trout as they appear within the three zones are
shown in Figure 26. Few young of the year rainbow trout were captured during the
population census, and most of the ﬁsh were age one or two. A chi-square test suggests
that the age structure is sigiiﬁcantly different for rainbow trout among all three zones
(p=.012). Brown trout age distributions can be seen in Figure 27. Young of the year
brown trout were evident upstream from the dam, but no young of the year brown trout
were encountered downstream ﬁ'om the dam. Age three and age four brown trout were
encountered more frequently downstream from the dam than younger brown trout. The
opposite was true for brown trout upstream from the dam; here it was more common to
encounter brown trout younger than age 3. A chi-square analysis of brown trout age
distribution suggests no sigriﬁcant difference (p=.368) between the impacted and non-
impacted zone, but the age distribution for brown trout downstream from the dam is
signiﬁcantly different (p=.001) from brown trout upstream ﬁom the dam. White suckers
were most commonly age zero or age one throughout the study reach (Figure 28). There
was no sigiiﬁcant difference detected in age distribution for white suckers among the

three zones (p=.365).

49

 

70 ~-

60 J»

40 «—

30 ~~

Relatlve Frequency

20 ‘-

 

#

Non-impacted Zone

 

 

888
,..

Relatlve Frequency
(A)
O

 

Impacted Zone

 

 

 

 

GOING
0000

Relative Frequency
U A
O O
—f—+—+_4+—+_, H.6— 2 , *4

AN
000

Downstream from Dam

Age

 

Figure 26. 1997 rainbow trout age distribution by zone.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Impacted Zone

5‘

E

a

2
LL

0
.2
Bi

0

o:

3
4o 4
Impacted Zone

5'

C

3

8

1L

2

3

2

O

a:

 

 

 

 

40 T Downstream from Dam

Relatlve Frequency
N
O

 

 

o 1 2 3
A90

 

 

 

Figure 27. 1997 brown trout age distribution by zone.

51

 

 

45 ' Non-impacted Zone

Relative Frequency

 

 

 

 

45 L Impacted Zone

Relative Frequency
N
0|

 

 

 

20 +
15
1o
5 +
o L
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Age
45 ~
5 Downstream from Dam
4o
35
E 30
0
3
g 25
IL
on,» 20 -»
E
- 15
a?
10 ‘
5 T I I
o i» , : 4 e t a
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10
Age

 

 

Figure 28. 1997 white sucker age distribution by zone.

52

Fish Growth
Rainbow Trout. The linear regression relating ﬁsh total length to scale radius is
shown in Figure 29 for rainbow trout. The y-intercept determined from this regression is
32.75 mm. This was used to back-calculate rainbow trout length using the Fraser-Lee
equation (Francis 1990), Li= 32.75+[(Lc-32.75) Si/Sc]. The analysis was performed on
151 rainbow trout captured in 1996 and 1997. Rainbow trout ranged in age from O to 4
years, with most ﬁsh being age 1 and age 2 (Figure 26). Annual growth increments and

mean lengths determined from back-calculations for these ﬁsh are given in Table 11.

Table 11. Rainbow trout annual growth.

 

 

Mean Growth Average Total
Age Incremengmm) Length (m) (n)
1 105.4 105.4 67
2 106.6 213.1 67
3 76.3 286.9
4 29.3 336.2 1

 

A regression of annual incremental growth on length at previous age was
computed for rainbow trout in each zone (Figure 30). A signifcant relationship between
these two variables (downstream zone, p=0.019; impacted zone, p=0.08 l; non-impacted
zone, p=0.032) suggests that length accounts for some of the difference in incremental
growth. An AN COVA, using length at previous age as a covariate, indicated no

signiﬁcant difference (p=0.225) in incremental growth between the three zones.

53

   
 

 

 

350 «-

300 --
’E‘ ..
E 250
g 200 «-
0
_l
>\
E 150 4-

r’ =0.86
100 -» p < 0.00001
. . n = 151
5° " y = 32.75 + 184.74 x
0 , 1 a 1 1 : 1 :
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Scale Length (mm)

Figure 29. Rainbow trout regression showing body-scale relationship pooled from 1996
and 1997.

54

250 -

 

E eZonel
v 2004
g ' lZone2
o
5 150_ oZone3
g
E 100—
i5
5 50—
3 .
0 . i i t i t i 1

 

 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Length at Previous Age (mm)

Figure 30. Rainbow trout incremental growth regressed on length at previous
age for each zone. Zone 1 represents ﬁsh downstream from darn, Zone 2
represents ﬁsh within the impacted zone, and Zone 3 represents ﬁsh in the non-

impacted zone.

55

Brown Trout. A linear regression relating ﬁsh total length to scale radius was
done on 256 brown trout captured in 1996 and 1997. This is shown graphically in Figure
31. For brown trout the y-intercept was calculated to be -6.98 mm. However, since -6.98
mm was not found to be signiﬁcantly different than zero, zero was used as the y-intercept.
The equation used to back-calculate brown trout length was, Li: 0+[(Lc-0) Si/Sc]. Brown
trout ranged from age zero to age four, with the majority of ﬁsh being age one and
numbers steadily declining with each age class (Figure 27). Annual growth increments
and mean lengths determined from back-calculations for these ﬁsh are reported in Table

12.

Table 12. Brown trout annual growth.

 

 

Mean Growth Average Total
Age Increment (mm) Lergth (mm) (11)
1 120.3 120.3 84
2 134.4 256.8 49
3 89.8 367.6 27
4 71.4 451.2 10

 

A regression of annual incremental growth on length at previous age was
computed for brown trout in each zone (Figure 32). The relationship between these two
variables (downstream zone, p=0.006; impacted zone, p=0.058; non-impacted zone,
p=0.006) suggests that length at age accounts for some of the difference in incremental
growth.

An AN COVA, using length at previous age as a covariate, indicated no signiﬁcant

difference (p=0.252) in incremental grth between the three zones.

56

700 v

600 w

500 4

400 4-

 

Body Length (mm)

P < 0.00001
11 = 256
y = -6.98 + 233.62 x

   

200 +

100 ~~

 

 

0 (15 1 1.5 2 215 3
Scale Length (mm)

Figure 31. Brown trout regression showing body-scale relationship pooled from
1996 and 1997.

57

250 -

 

 

 

 

e Zonel
O
c-
EZOO‘ o C I ZOIICZ
E . o: o Zone3
5150-
2100‘
E
E
350.
0 I l I I 'I I I I I I I

O 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Length at Previous Age (mm)
Figure 32. Brown trout incremental growth regressed on length at previous age
for each zone. Zone 1 represents ﬁsh downstream from the dam, Zone 2

represents ﬁsh in the impacted zone, and Zone 3 represents ﬁsh in the non-
impacted zone.

58

White Suckers. A linear regression relating ﬁsh total length to fin-ray radius was
performed on 149 common white suckers captured in 1997. This is shown graphically in
Figure 33. For white suckers the y-intercept was calculated to be 67.33 mm. The
equation used to back-calculate white sucker lengths was, Li: 67.33+[(Lc-67.33) Si/Sc].
White suckers ranged from age zero to age twelve, with the majority of ﬁsh being age one
(Figure 28). Annual growth increments and mean lengths determined from back-

calculations for these ﬁsh, ages one to ten are reported in Table 13.

Table 13. White sucker annual growth.

 

 

Mean Growth Average Total
Age Increment (mm) Length (m) (n)
1 143.6 143.6 46
2 55.1 199.8 33
3 63.7 266.7 16
4 62.7 300.5 8
5 36.9 379.0 10
6 30.5 412.2 3
7 65.8 490.2 3
8 25.5 448.3 5
9 34.9 456.3 5
10 18.2 462.4 4

 

A regression of annual incremental growth on length at previous age was
computed for white suckers in each zone (Figure 34). The relationship between these two
variables (p<0.00001 in all three zones) suggests that length at age accounts for some of
the difference in incremental growth.

An AN COVA, using length at previous age as a covariate, indicated incremental

growth was similar (p=0.615) between the three zones.

59

600 ~-

    

 

 

soo ~~
e
e
A 400 ._
E
E
E» 300 .
>s
'0
:8
r2 = 0.90
20° ‘ o P < 0.00001
n = 149
y = 67.33 + 313.57 x
100 1
e
e
0 I I I + I I I I
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Scale Length (mm)

Figure 33. White sucker regression showing body-ﬁn ray relationship from
ﬁsh captured in 1997.

60

250 -

o
200 ~-
8
150 - eZonel
lZone2

    

oZone3
100 4

Annual Incremental Growth (mm)
LII
O

 

 

0 I I I I I I I I I I‘I
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Length At Previous Age (mm)
Figure 34. White sucker incremental growth regressed on length at previous age
for each zone. Zone 1 represents ﬁsh downstream from the darn, Zone 2

represents ﬁsh in the impacted zone, and Zone 3 represents ﬁsh in the non-
impacted zone.

61

Although, differences in growth determined from back-calculated lengths within
habitat zones was not detected in either of the trout species, their length at capture is
greater than average for Michigan trout (Tables 14 and 15). Conversely, the white
suckers in the Pine River are not growing as well as the average white sucker in Michigan

as indicated by lengths at capture, except for the age zero and age seven ﬁsh (Table 16).

Table 14. 1996 and 1997 Pine River rainbow trout length (mm) at capture compared to
Michigan state averages for stream-dwelling rainbow trout (Laarman et al. 1981). All
ﬁsh were captured during the growing season.

 

 

Age Pine River Michigan State Average
0 61 56
1 201 160
2 279 213
3 323 262
4 363 --

 

Table 15. 1996 and 1997 Pine River brown trout length (mm) at capture compared to
Michigan state averages for stream-dwelling brown trout (Laarman et al. 1981). All ﬁsh
were captured during the growing season.

 

 

Age Pine River Michigan State Average
0 72 76
1 218 163
2 341 229
3 434 292
4 542 384

 

62

Table 16. 1997 Pine River white sucker length (mm) at capture compared to Michigan
state averages for lake-dwelling white suckers (Laarman et al. 1981). All ﬁsh were
captured during the growing season.

 

 

1997 Michigan State

Age Length (mm) Average (mm)
0 107 89
1 191 218
2 244 305
3 312 363
4 394 414
5 419 429
6 439 460
7 493 460

 

63

DISCUSSION

The impacts of dams on river ecosystems have been studied extensively (Brune
1953, Hammad 1972, Lignon et al. 1995, Parker 1980, Petts 1980, Ward and Stanford
1989, Williams and Wolman 1984). Most of these studies concentrate on aspects
affecting a river downstream from a dam. Little attention has been given to impacts a
darn might have in the situation of an impoundment silted in. Yet, by their nature, all
dams will eventually become obsolete for hydropower operations. In the situation of
Stronach Dam, the one-time 26 hectare reservoir, has essentially served as a sediment trap
over the years with the effects seen for 3.8 kilometers upstream from the darn.
Hydrologic changes have occurred within the greater Manistee River system (e. g. Tippy
Darn) since the closure of Stronach Darn, that make restoration of the Pine River to pre-
dam conditions impossible. Nonetheless, understanding the processes which explain the
morphologic characteristics of a river aids in evaluating the complex changes in species
interactions which may occur as a result of a dam removal.

In the few documented cases where dams have been deliberately removed, e. g.
Fort Edward Dam on the Hudson River, NY in 1973, Newaygo Dam on the Muskegon
River, MI 1969, Woolen Mills Dam on the Milwaukee River, WI in 1988, Salling Dam
on the AuSable River, MI in 1992, Columbia Falls Dam on the Pleasant River, ME in
1989 (Shuman 1995a), few studies have investigated the response of ﬁsh to the removal.
As many hydroelectric dams come up for relicensing, it is expected that an increasing
number of them will be scheduled for removal. Management decisions regarding darn

removals need to give consideration to the ecological impacts a removal may have. This

64

requires pre-planning to include a baseline evaluation of the physical and biological
aspects of the system. While each dam presents a unique set of circumstances, the
StronachDam project is an attempt to comprehensively document the ecological impacts
a dam removal will have, and serves as a reference for managers who are faced with dam
removals in the future.

Ma; Initial measurements of mesa-scale habitat types made in 1995 clearly
show a difference between the three habitat study zones: non-impacted, impacted, and
downstream zones (Figure 5). The diversity of habitat types increases at a point
approximately 3.8 kilometers upstream from the dam. These ﬁndings agree with those
described by Hansen (1971), who noted that Stronach Dam had inﬂuenced the stream
channel with an increase in sediment occurring up to 2.8 miles upstream from the dam.

The pebble count analysis shows an overall trend for particle size to decrease from
upstream to downstream (Figures 15-20). Sand, which is prevalent throughout the river,
becomes the dominant substrate type near the dam and downstream ﬁom the dam. A chi-
square analysis suggests that differences in the distribution of particle size occurred
between 1996 and 1997 at sites: LC #1, BW #3, RR #3, and SP. #5. At two of these sites
(BW #3 and RR #3), trees had fallen into the river upstream from the transect which may
account for the differences. Site SP #5 is the site directly upstream from the dam. The
changes in substrate size at this site may be due to the installation of the water control
structure and the excavation that was involved in that process. Any changes in streambed
particle size, however, may be due to natural variation which occurs in a dynamic fluvial

system.

65

Hansen’s (1971) study of sediment transport along a 26-mile stretch of the Pine
River reported a relationship between major classes of sediment on the streambed to the
slope of the water surface. My study shows a similar trend (Figure 23). As gradient
decreases from the upstream sites to sites within the impacted zone, substrate particle size
also decreases. This can be attributed to the high-energy water, associated with the higher
gradient, being able to transport small and less stable particles. This supports the
assumption that when the dam is removed, a coarsening of the substrate will result within
the impacted zone, as sediment moves downstream.

The streambed at sites within the non-impacted zone is well armored with gravel
or cobble. Therefore, I did not expect to detect changes in streambed elevation between
years 1996 and 1997 at these sites (Figures 6—8). It is unlikely that these sites will change
in response to the dam removal. Major changes that can be directly related to the dam
removal are not evident from the streambed proﬁles of the impacted zone (Figures 9-13).
However, within the impacted zone, small differences in streambed elevation can be seen
in some of the Stronach Pond series’ transects (Figure 13). It should be noted that at the
time the 1997 survey was completed, the dam had been lowered 2 '/2 feet. Therefore, we
wouldn’t expect any changes in elevation greater than 2 V2 feet to be associated with the
dam removal. Indeed, elevation changes larger than 2 1/2 feet were not detected (Table 5)
at any sites except at SP #5. This site is upstream from, and adjacent to the dam. The
degradation of the streambed by 5.49 feet at this site is associated with excavation and
installation of the water control device. Sites downstream from the dam (Figure 14 and
Table 5), have begun to show some aggradation. This is the response we would expect as

sediment is moved downstream with the lowering of the dam. It is important to

66

recognize, however, that there are indications that the streambed downstream from the
dam is inﬂuenced by hydro operations at Tippy Dam. Most notably, in a 1992-93
incident, where the water level at Tippy Dam was lowered 8 to 10 feet for repairs, surface
water elevation in the tailrace waters at Stronach Dam lowered in elevation by 2.7 feet
(Battige 1996). Simultaneously, about a kilometer downstream from Stronach Dam, ﬁsh
habitat enhancement structures that had been submerged several feet below the water
surface were exposed by the subsequent decrease in streambed elevation. Understanding
that the elevation of the streambed downstream from Stronach Dam is partially
inﬂuenced by activity at Tippy Dam, reduces the degree of certainty we can ascribe
changes detected in streambed elevation to the lowering of Stronach Dam.

Expected Long-term Changes to Habitat. Geomorphological changes that occur
as a result of the dam removal, may take years, even decades, after the dam is removed
before reaching a state of equilibrium. It will take even longer to be reﬂected in ﬁsh
populations. Equilibrium has been described as a state when the average elevation of the
streambed is maintained over a period of time because the inﬂow of sediment is equal to
the outﬂow (Frenette and Harvey 1973). Under this deﬁnition, the Pine River at Stronach
Dam has been in a state of equilibrium since 1950. Sedimentation models estimate that
conditions of sediment transport equilibrium had been reached at that time and that the
sediment trapping efficiency of Stronach Pond has since been reduced to zero (LMSE
1992a). Frenette and Harvey also explain that true equilibrium is rarely achieved in
natural rivers since rivers tend to continually wear the land surface down to a base level
(which is ultimately sea level), and that these changes typically occur on a geologic time

scale. Activities induced by man can result in sudden changes so that it is unﬁtting in the

67

case of a dam removal to consider equilibrium occurring only at a geologic time scale.
The term ‘dynamic equilibrium’ is a more appropriate term in considering the processes
involved with a dam removal. Dynamic equilibrium can be explained ecologically as the
succession corresponding to the re-establishment of the substratum by organisms.
Amoros and Wade (1996) suggest this re-establishment time could take weeks to several
years depending on the magnitude of the disturbance and the regeneration time for the
taxa involved. This ecological succession can be complicated by the random occurrence
of a large ﬂood event. It should be recognized that the situation of a large ﬂood event
increases potential for increased sediment transport ﬁom bed and bank erosion which
could further delay the re-establishment of instrearn fauna.

In a study done to evaluate the effects of sediment following a dam removal in
1969 on the Muskegon River, Michigan, it was estimated that about 40% of the
impounded sediment was washed downstream immediately after the removal while the
rest of the sediment moved downstream at a rate of 1.6 km per year (Shuman 1995a).
Similarly, the removal of the Woolen Mills Dam on the Milwaukee River resulted in
most of the sediment within the 2.4 kilometer stretch of former impoundment to be
scoured downstream within six months. After this scouring, the streambed uncovered a
gravel and rubble substrate (Shuman 1995a). Shuman (1995b) suggests that following a
dam removal, it may take 50 to 80 years for the sediment to totally ﬂush through the river
system.

The changes in channel morphology associated with the Stronach Dam removal
are expected to cause downcutting and change the slope of the channel where deposition

has occurred through the years. This will, consequently, increase the velocity of water in

68

the affected areas. In turn, a dynamic series of streambed aggradation and degradation
processes along the river can be expected as sediment is transported. Under these
environmental circumstances, the biotic community will not comprehensively reﬂect the
impacts of the disturbance until the river channel physically adjusts into a stable structure
(Petts 1987).

Fish Abundance. The detection of trout abundance increasing in an upstream
direction corresponds to the observation that habitat quality increases for trout in that
same direction. The effects of sand, as found in the impacted and downstream zones, is
well-documented (Cordone and Kelley 1961, Everest et al. 1987, Hansen 1971, Waters
1995). Sediment can reduce spawning success by covering gravel, decreasing food
supplies for ﬁsh due to scouring aquatic insects from substrate or burying desirable
substrate, reducing pool depths thereby decreasing carrying capacity of the stream for
larger ﬁsh, reducing survival rates of eggs, decreasing vertical relief associated with the
streambed used by fry as cover, and by changing the albedo of the streambed making ﬁsh
more vulnerable to predation (Alexander and Hansen 1986).

The conjecture that numbers of trout will diminish in response to reduced habitat
quality is substantiated by previous studies. Alexander and Hansen ( 1983, 1986) found
sand deposition in Hunt Creek, Michigan, was related to decreased abundance of trout in
all size and age groups. Five years after the removal of the Woolen Mills Dam in
Wisconsin, Kanehl et al. (1997) noted improvement in ﬁsh habitat quality in the area that
had been impounded and an increase in abundance of smallrnouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieui). Similarly, Hunt (1976) found that numbers and biomass of brook trout in a

Wisconsin stream increased and peaked six years aﬁer a stream habitat enhancement

69

project. This substantiates the need for long-term monitoring following the dam removal.
Alexander and Hansen hypothesized that the mechanism responsible for increased
densities of trout was the effect that sand had on the microhabitat and the resulting
reduced survival of early life stages. In spite of increased abundance of trout, Alexander
and Hansen found growth rate was not affected by sand deposition. They suggest that the
decrease in benthos production associated with sandy substrate is negated by the
decreased number of trout competing for that resource. It is possible that the same
phenomenon is taking place in the Pine River. The fact that there was no difference
detected in trout growth rate, in spite of differences in trout densities between the three
habitat zones, indicates a decrease in competition for food due to lower abundance of
trout in the areas were habitat is affected by sand.

It is likely that movement of sand and sediment from the impacted zone, as is
expected with the dam removal, will increase the carrying capacity of the Pine River. In a
Minnesota stream, Elwood and Waters (1969) reported a sharp decrease in a brook trout
population after a severe ﬂood ﬁlled pool areas with sand, decreasing space suitable for
trout.

The presence of rainbow trout and brown trout throughout the study stretch
suggests that environmental and habitat conditions are not limiting. The lack of brook
trout downstream from the dam indicates a less than optimal habitat in that zone. It is
reasonable to believe that the sandy substrate is not conducive to support the benthos
these ﬁsh require. However, if benthos were the limiting factor, it would follow that
brown trout and rainbow trout, which exhibit similar feeding behavior as brook trout

(Bowlby and Imhof 1989, Carlander 1969), would also be absent downstream ﬁom the

70

dam. It is possible that brook trout are limited by resting space downstream from the
dam. Brook trout young-of-the-year are generally found in shallow rifﬂes and as they
increase in size they seek cover in deeper pools with undercut banks (Saunders and Smith
1962). Downstream from the dam, where the river is considerably wider, cover in the
form of overhead shade and undercut banks is limited. If brook trout were to occupy the
downstream zone, they would have to compete with other trout for available cover.
Fausch and White (1981) demonstrated that brown trout were able to outcompete brook
trout for resting positions associated with available cover in a Michigan stream.

In addition, the substrate downstream from the dam is not suitable for brook trout
spawning. Brook trout require gravel substrate for spawning with gravels 30-80 mm
being considered optimal (Raleigh 1982). This coincides with substrate particle size
categories 9 and 10 on the measuring scale that we used. From Figure 22, it is evident
that this substrate type is not prevalent except in the area not impacted by the dam. In
contrast, optimal substrate size for brown and rainbow trout spawning includes smaller
particle sizes than that for brook trout. Brown trout prefer gravel 10-70 mm, but will
utilize substrate 3-100 mm in size (Raleigh et al. 1986). This corresponds to substrate
categories 5-10 with preference for 7-10 in Figure 22. Rainbow trout <500 mm (as found
in the Pine River), on average prefer substrate particle size in the 15-60 mm range
(Raleigh et al. 1984). This is represented in Figure 22 by substrate categories 7-9. Under
these conditions, brown trout and rainbow trout are able to utilize habitat both in the
impacted zone and the non-impacted zone for spawning.

Brook trout abundance throughout the study area is inversely related to the

presence of white suckers. This may be a reﬂection of the autoecology of these ﬁsh and

71

their speciﬁc habitat requirements, but it may also be a result of a competitive interaction
between these two species. Magnan (1988) and Tremblay and Magnan (1991) reported
that the presence of white sucker had an impact on brook trout in terms of changes in
food habits (a shift from benthic invertebrates to zooplankton) and a decrease in mean
annual yield. He attributed these effects to the intensity of competition between these
species. Flick and Webster (1992) found that elimination of white suckers from
Adirondack waters improved brook trout standing crop from 0.3 lb./acre to 8-10 lb./acre.

White suckers appear to thrive in the downstream reaches of the Pine River.
Compared to the upstream zones, they face the least potential of competition from trout
here. White suckers are morphologically better adapted to feed on zoobenthos than trout
(Magnan 1988) and, being opportunistic feeders, are less limited by the degraded habitat
downstream from the dam.

White suckers prefer gravel substrate for spawning with relatively swift, shallow
(20 to 30 cm) water. Spawning in rivers has been reported at current velocities between
14 cm/sec to 90 cm/sec. However, current velocities between 30 to 59 cm/sec are
considered excellent for spawning white Suckers (Twomey et al. 1984). Given the
velocity readings I measured (Figure 35), the white suckers may ﬁnd currents sub-optimal
for spawning in the upper reaches of our study area. It should be noted that we took our
velocity measurements midsummer when water depth and ﬂow is lowest. White suckers
spawn in April and May when water depth and current velocity may be considerably
higher. Additionally, the velocity measurements I’ve reported are the mean values for an
entire transect. Within a given transect there are pockets of slower water near the margins

of the stream which, if the substrate were suitable, may be used for spawning.

72

memo—EH23 5 :39? 83023 85:68:. 5m? Gemiov 32029» owebg A3682 83.23 33 mm onE

can 88% sea as: 8:85

 

w a e m e m m _ o _
_ _ m _ _ _ m 2 ._ _
ocoN cocoon—5-52 chum—N5 gum—Wop
as :3: mg: N

em 8 GE m .3. 3%

N we
1" N‘l \w 3 Ga :3 ﬁt
I... :11 s s s .
o.— E B: J. are"

E:

San
nogobm

73

The question remains whether suckers, after using a particular habitat for
spawning, would remain in an area of swift water. White sucker abundance was reported
to decrease in response to an increase in water velocity as a result of a habitat restoration
project on Rapid Creek, South Dakota. Brown trout abundance simultaneously increased.
Initially, the suckers outnumbered the trout nine to one. Four years after the restoration
work, brown trout outnumbered suckers nine to one (Ford 1984).

It has been observed that white suckers have a hard time maintaining stability in
fast or turbulent water and that adults primarily inhabit areas of slow to moderate velocity
(approximately 40 cm/sec). Though smaller ﬁsh (<150 mm) occupy a wider variety of
habitats than adults (Twomey et al. 1984). These slower (40 crn/sec) current velocity
conditions were only encountered within 4.0 meters of the stream edge in transects
upstream ﬁ'om the impacted zone, within 8 meters of the stream edge in the impacted
zone and within 14 meters of the stream edge downstream from the dam. Relative widths
of transects having velocities less than 40 cm/sec are shown in Figure 36. Based on these
observations and the contention that white suckers are primarily found in velocities < 40
cm/sec, the amount of space suitable for white suckers becomes very limited in the
upstream, non-impacted stretch of the Pine. Given that gradient is expected to increase as
the dam is removed, and that velocities will consequently increase, it is unlikely that large
numbers of white suckers will seek residence in the rehabilitated waters of the Pine.

Age Distribution of F i§l_1, Age distribution of rainbow trout between the three
zones (Figure 26) reveals that the majority (91 percent) of rainbow trout are age one and
two. Young of the year rainbows were rarely encountered. A possible explanation for

this is that these ﬁsh were not susceptible to the electroﬁshing equipment due to their

74

.AmeoE—oeoo go 3 838883 8 8305 mama 05 mm A8808V
at; 88.5 :38. .0880 ovv 33022, 80.85 838 83.5 .«o A8308V «523 05 Pa mam nob .9.” 0.83m

88 e888 sea as: 8.58

 

m _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _I 2
BEN 36387.82 tawny—”Ms: KHNWOQ“
3.3 6.3 was:
4." 8 95 m .... N as:

m . .N . m
s. a: m n

11' “911$"... 1H,}; 3 6.5 8.3 m W
32% UH ham. I b. a GWNV
cm /\.I mm 8.3

in

85. _. >\a
.5...” 2

:4

8am
somaobm

75

small size. Of the species studied, rainbow trout are the smallest at the time of year
(July/August) we sampled. Alternatively, they may not be present in the mainstem of the
Pine at this age. They may be seeking refuge in one of the wetlands or side channels that
adjoin the river.

Brown trout young of the year were susceptible to the electroﬁshing gear. Age
zero ﬁsh made up 31 percent of the ﬁsh upstream from the dam (Figure 27). Age zero
and age one ﬁsh comprised the majority (67 percent) of the ﬁsh upstream from the dam.
Conversely, downstream from the dam age zero brown trout were absent and 63 percent
of the ﬁsh were age three and four. This raises a question as to suitability of the
downstream zone for young of the year brown trout and the upstream zones for suitability
for age three and age four ﬁsh. A possible explanation for the upstream/downstream
discrepancy in age distributions may lie in the forage base available in these zones. Many
resident ﬁsh in Tippy Reservoir use the stretch of the Pine River downstream from the
dam, for their spawning migrations. I witnessed seasonal migrations en masse of
redhorse suckers (Moxostoma macrolepidotum and M. anisurum), rock bass (Ambloplites
rupestris), northern pike (E. lucius), trout perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus), and white
suckers (C. commersoni) during their spawning seasons. It is likely that this spawning
production creates a forage base suitable for larger trout. If young of the year brown trout
do occur downstream from the dam, they may be included in this forage base. During the
three years of this study, we did not encounter any redhorse sucker, rock bass, northern
pike or trout perch upstream from the dam. It is likely that the age zero brown trout fall

prey to these predators downstream from the dam. That an abundance of smaller ﬁsh as

76

forage is not available to brown trout upstream from the dam, may preclude these ﬁsh
from reaching age three and four.

The age distribution of white suckers (Figure 28) suggests that most (63
percent) of the resident white suckers are age zero and age one. These two age groups
account for 55 percent of the suckers in the non-impacted zone and a comparable 54
percent of the suckers in the impacted zone. Eighty-one percent of the white suckers
downstream from the dam fell into the age zero and age one cohorts while the remaining
19 percent of the downstream white suckers were ages two to ﬁve. In the non-impacted
and impacted zone the ages two to ﬁve ﬁsh accounted for 35 percent and 36 percent
(respectively) of the suckers. The remaining 8 percent of the suckers upstream from the
dam were ages six to ten. While white suckers, ages six to 'ten were encountered
downstream ﬁ'om the dam during the spring spawning season, we did not capture any
resident white suckers in this age class during the July/August survey. Because these ﬁsh
have access to Tippy Reservoir, I speculate that they are seeking more suitable conditions
away from the swift current of the Pine and are foraging in the backwater of Tippy Dam
during the growing season.

Fish Growth. Fish growth did not vary between the three habitat zones. Even

 

though it is recognized that ﬁsh move freely within the river’s impacted and non-
impacted zones, I anticipated that the differences of habitat quality in the two upstream
zones and the isolation of the downstream zone would manifest itself to some degree in
ﬁsh growth. It should be recognized, however, that the growth increment that I
examined, was the most recent ‘full’ year of growth. Therefore, the growth attained

during the season of capture, is not accounted for in the growth increment that I analyzed.

77

Thus, it is unlikely that a given ﬁsh was captured in the same locale that it established its
last annual growth increment.

Water temperature often plays a major inﬂuence on ﬁsh growth. The thermal
impact of Stronach Darn has been evaluated (LMSE 1992b) and water temperature is
monitored continuously by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Krueger
1998). Water temperature data collected from sites within the three habitat zones suggest
that Stronach Dam does not impact water temperature since there is no retention time in
the backwater area and, that water temperatures do not ﬂuctuate between the three zones
represented in the study reach.

An alternative explanation for the undifferentiated growth may be that, because
trout are found in higher densities in the non-impacted zone, density dependent effects
may be strong enough upstream to negate any additional growth that could be attributed
to better habitat conditions.

Overall, the trout are growing well compared to other stream-residing trout in
Michigan (Tables 14 and 15). This may suggest that they are not limited by food or
space. White suckers, on the other hand, are not growing as well as the average white
sucker in Michigan (Laarman et al. 1981), except at ages zero and seven (Table 16). This
may suggest that forage is limiting, or that other environmental conditions are not optimal
for them. If forage is limiting sucker growth, due to benthos abundance being reduced by
the sand in this stream, it is not apparently affecting trout growth. This might be
explained by rainbow and brown trout relying more heavily on drift, terrestrials, and ﬁsh
for their diet. However, we can not state this conclusively without diet and benthos data

to support it. Alternatively, the white suckers in the Pine may be expending more energy

78

resisting stream current or competing with trout for optimal space than the average white
sucker. It must be noted that the average lengths reported by Laarman et al. (1981) for
white suckers in Michigan are not solely based on stream-dwelling ﬁsh. Growth
differences could be explained by the variation of environmental conditions suckers are
exposed to. The higher than average growth of age zero white suckers may be due to the
ability of these younger ﬁsh to occupy a wider array of habitat (Twomey et al. 1984), and
being able to outcompete young of the year trout for optimal foraging ground by virtue of
their size advantage at that age. The difference in length of age zero ﬁsh may also be a
reﬂection of whether these ﬁsh were captured early or late in the growing season. The
age seven length estimate is probably a reﬂection of small sample size in that age
category (n=3). It might also be noted that when ﬁsh get older, ﬁn rays get difﬁcult to
read. The darker zones between annuli become more narrow and annuli merge toward

the edge of the ray. This observation is supported by others (Quinn and Ross 1982). '

79

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The contrast of higher gradient water with its stable streambed in the upstream
reaches of the study area to the sand-covered low gradient channel near the dam is
evidence that Stronach Dam has had an impact on habitat quality throughout the years. It
is reasonable to believe that as the dam is removed and sediment moves downstream, the
gradient will increase in the impacted zone resulting in the uncovering of a gravel/cobble
substrate. This will create greater diversity in hydraulic conditions and generate more
habitat suitable for trout.

Fish growth was not signiﬁcantly different between zones of varying habitat
quality for any of the ﬁsh species (rainbow trout, brown trout, and white suckers)
investigated. This suggests that where these species occur, they are able to use the
available forage base to the same level of efﬁciency as conspeciﬁcs in other areas of the
river. However, free movement of ﬁsh throughout the study area confounds growth
results when comparing ﬁsh from various areas. Given that ﬁsh growth differences were
not detected across the variable habitat conditions and ﬁsh densities that were observed, it
is unlikely that changes in ﬁsh growth associated with the dam removal will be detected.

An examination of age distribution among ﬁsh suggests that the majority of white
suckers are ages zero and one with some reaching age 10. Most of the trout were ages
zero, one, and two, with no trout found older than age four. However, downstream from
the darn, brown trout were most commonly ages three and four, and age zero brown trout
were not encountered. The predominance of older year classes of brown trout

downstream from the dam suggests that a food source may be present there, allowing

80

them to make an ontogenetic shift to larger prey, a resource not available to trout
upstream from the dam. The absence of age zero brown trout downstream from the dam
suggests that predation by foraging species common to Tippy Reservoir, or by other trout,
may be a factor in controlling age structure of Pine River ﬁsh. An investigation into the
diet of these ﬁsh may help explain the differences in age/size distribution between the
zones and provide a basis for comparison after the dam is removed. If the forage base is a
factor in structuring the age/ size distribution of ﬁsh, the dam removal may increase the
number of ﬁsh reaching a larger size or may affect recruitment of trout if age zero ﬁsh are
lost to predation.

Fish densities responded to the degree of impact that Stronach Dam has had on
habitat and the isolation of ﬁsh downstream from the dam. The upstream-most reaches of
our study section, where the habitat has been least inﬂuenced by the dam, had the highest
average abundance of trout. Trout densities tend to diminish in a downstream direction
with fewest numbers of trout found downstream from the dam. White sucker abundance,
in contrast, was lowest in the upstream, non-impacted zone and highest downstream from
the darn. It is expected that densities of trout will increase where the gradient of the
stream channel increases as a result of the dam removal.

It is important to recognize that streambed elevation in the Pine River is partially
controlled by hydropower operations at Tippy Dam. This limits the certainty with which
we can attribute downstream streambed elevation changes during the removal of Stronach
Dam. Furthermore, the presence of Tippy Dam and the fact that its backwaters currently
extend into the Pine River creates additional uncertainty regarding the extent of habitat

restoration we can expect aﬁer Stronach Dam is removed. The impact that this could

81

have on stream gradient, water temperature, and ﬁsh community structure remains
questionable.

The biotic structure of the river will not reach a state of equilibrium until after the
stream channel becomes stable, which may be years after the dam is removed. Therefore,
in order to detect the full effect of the darn removal, it is essential that the stream’s
physical and biological attributes continue to be monitored for a long period (years to

decades) after the removal is completed.

82

LITERATURE CITED

83

LITERATURE CITED

Alexander, GR, and EA. Hansen. 1983. Sand sediment in a Michigan trout stream part
H: Effects of reducing sand bedload on a trout population. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 3:365-372.

Alexander, GR, and E. A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:9-23.

Amoros, C., and RM. Wade. 1996. Ecological successions. Pages 211-241 in GE. Petts
and C. Amoros, editors. Fluvial Hydrosystems. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Battige, D. 1996. Personal conversation. Consumers Power Company. Cadillac,
Michigan.

Blumer, S.P., T.E. Behrendt, J .M. Ellis, R.J. Minnerick, R.L. LeuVoy, and CR. Whited.
1998. Water Resources Data - Michigan, Water Year 1997. US. Geological
Survey Water Data Report MI-97-1.

Bowers, R., and M. Bowman. 1995. Hydroelectric relicensing: how relicensing can
affect dam removals. River Voices 5(4):7-10.

Bowlby, J.N., and J .G. Irnhof. 1989. Alternative approaches in predicting trout
populations from habitat in streams. Pages 317-330 in J .A. Gore and GE. Petts,
editors. Alternative in Regulated River Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida.

Brune, GM. 1953. Trap efficiency of reservoirs. Transactions of the American
Geophysical Union 34:407-418.

Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology. Volume One. Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Cordone, A.J., and D.W. Kelley. 1961. The inﬂuences of inorganic sediment on the
aquatic life of streams. California Fish and Game 47: 1 89-228.

Elwood, J .W., and T.F. Waters. 1969. Effects of ﬂoods on food consumption and

production rates of a stream brook trout population. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 2:253-262. '

84

Everest, F .H., R.L. Beschta, J .C. Scrivener, K.V. Koski, J .R. Sedell, and C.J. Cederholrn.
1987. Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. Pages 98-142 in ED.
Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium Streamside
Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington,
Institute of Forest Resources 57.

Fausch, K.D., and R.J. White. 1981. Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo mom) for poisitions in a Michigan stream.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 1220-1227.

Flick, W.A., and DA. Webster. 1992. Standing crops of brook trout in Adirondack
waters before and after removal of non-trout species. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 12:783-796.

Ford, R. 1984. Suckers to trout - effect of habitat restoration on ﬁsh populations in Rapid
City, South Dakota. Pages 133-136 in F. Richardson and RH. Hamre, editors.
Proceedings of the Symposium Wild Trout HI. Federation of Fly Fishers and ,
others.

Francis, R.I.C.C. 1990. Back-calculation of ﬁsh length: a critical review. Journal of
Fisheries Biology 36:883-902.

F renette, M., and B. Harvey. 1973. River channel processes. Fluvial Processes and
Sedimentation, Proceedings of Hydrology Symposium. University of Alberta,
Edmonton. National Research Council, Canada. pp. 294-319.

Haberrnan, R. 1995. Dam ﬁghts of the 19905: Removals. River Voices 5(4):1-6.

Hammad, H.Y. 1972. River bed degradation aﬂer closure of dams. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Journal of the Hydraulics Division 98:591-607.

Hansen, EA. 1971. Sediment in a Michigan trout stream, its source, movement and
some effects on ﬁsh habitat. US. Forest Service, Research Paper NC-59.

Hicks, B.J., and N.R.N. Watson. 1985. Seasonal changes in abundance of brown trout
(Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (S. gairdnerii) assessed by drift diving in the
Rangitikei River, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research 19:1-10.

Hunt, R.L. 1976. A long-term evaluation of trout habitat development and its relations to

improving management-related research. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 105:361-364.

85

Kanehl, P.D., J. Lyons, and J .E. Nelson. 1997. Changes in the habitat and ﬁsh community
of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen Mills Dam.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:387-400.

Kenny, J .H. 1968. Sedimentation effects upon removal of Stronach Dam, Manistee
County, Michigan. Unpublished Report Prepared for Consumers Power
Company. Fargo Engineering Company Consulting Engineers, Jackson,
Michigan. 17 pp.

Kondolf, G.M., and S. Li. 1992. The pebble count technique for quantifying surface bed
material size in instrearn ﬂow studies. Rivers 3:80-87.

Kondolf, G. M., and ER. Micheli. 1995. Evaluating stream restoration projects.
Environmental Management 1921-15.

Krueger, K. 1998. Personal conversation. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Mio, Michigan.

Laarman, P.W., J .C. Schneider, and H. Gowing. 1981. Methods in age and growth
analyses of ﬁsh. Appendix A-4 in J .W. Mema, G.R. Alexander, W.D. Alward,
and R.L. Eshenroder, editors. Manual of Fisheries Survey Methods. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Management Report No. 9. Lansing,
Michigan.

Ligon, F.K., W.E. Dietrich, and W.J. Trush. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of
dams: A geomorphic perspective. BioScience 45:183-192.

LMSE, 1992a. A study of sediment transport in Stronach Pond. Unpublished relicensing
report done for Consumers Power Company by Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly
Engineers. Pearl River, NY.

LMSE, 1992b. Evaluation of Pine River temperature. Unpublished report done for
Consumers Power Company by Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers. Pearl
River, NY.

Magnan, P. 1988. Interactions between brook charr, Salvelinusfontinalis, and
nonsalrnonid species: ecological shift, morphological shift, and their impact on
zooplankton communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
45:999-1009.

Parker, G. 1980. Downstream response of gravel-bed streams to dams: an overview.

Pages 792-801 in H.G. Stefan, editor. Proceedings of the Symposium on Surface
Water Impoundments. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.

86

Petts, GE. 1980. Long-terrn consequences of upstream impoundment. Environmental
Conservation 7:325-332.

Petts, GE. 1987. Time-scales for ecological change in regulated rivers. Pages 257-266 in
J .F . Craig and J .B. Kemper, editors. Regulated streams: advances in ecology.
Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream,
riparian, and biotic conditions. Ogden, UT: US. Forest Service Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station (General Technical Report INT-138).

Quinn, SP, and MR. Ross. 1982. Annulus formation by white suckers and the reliability
of pectoral ﬁn rays for ageing them. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 2:204-208.

Raleigh, RF. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Brook trout. US. Fish and Wildlife
Service F WS/OBS-82/ 10.24. 42 pp.

Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and RC. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability
information: Rainbow trout. US. Fish and Wildlife Service F WS/OBS-82/ 10.60.

64 pp.

Raleigh, R.F., L.D. Zuckerman, and PC. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models
and instrearn ﬂow suitability curves: Brown trout, revised. US. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 82(10.124). 65 pp. [First printed as: FWS/OBS-
82/10.71, September 1984].

SAS Institute. 1988. SAS user’s guide, version 6.03. SAS Institute, Cary, North
Carolina.

Saunders, J .W., and M.W. Smith. 1962. Physical alteration of stream habitat to improve
brook trout production. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 91 :185-
188.

Shuman, J.R. 1995a. Environmental considerations for assessing dam removal
alternatives for river restoration. Regulated Rivers Research & Management
11:249-261.

Shuman, J .R. 1995b. The importance of environmental assessments for proposed dam
removals. River Voices 5(4): 12-1 5.

Stuber, B. 1994. Pine River ﬁsheries and aquatic resources: wild and scenic river

management plan. US. Forest Service, Huron-Manistee National Forests,
Cadillac, Michigan. 39 pp.

87

Tremblay, S. and P. Magnan. 1991. Interactions between two distantly related species,
brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis) and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni).
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:857-867.

Twomey, K.A., K.L. Williamson, and RC. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability index models
and instrearn ﬂow suitability curves: White sucker. US. Fish and Wildlife Service
F WS/OBS-82/ 10.64. 56 pp.

Van Deventer, J .S., and W.S. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating ﬁsh populations
from streams. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference 48:349-354.

Van Deventer, J .S., and W.S. Platts. 1985. A computer software system for entering,
managing, and analyzmg ﬁsh capture data ﬁom streams. USDA Forest Service
Research Note INT-3 52. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 12 pp.

Ward, J .V., and J .A. Stanford. 1989. Riverine ecosystems: the inﬂuence of man on
catchment dynamics and ﬁsh ecology. Pages 56-64 in DR Dodge editor.
Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Canadian Special
Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: sources, biological effects and control.
American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

Williams, GR, and MG. Wolman. 1984. Downstream effects of dams on alluvial rivers.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286. US. Geological Survey, Washington,
DC. 83 pp.

88

"11111111111111114