1. 1
TO: Dr. Erik Nordman
FROM: Student, Jared Sartini
DATE: Friday, April 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Capstone Final Report
Below is the final report for my capstone project. The proposal was reworked in a more
organized fashion and completed. The objectives have been revised and in some cases, made
more specific especially concerning the quantification of those objectives. I’ve decided to use a
paired sample mean T-test of statistical analysis for most of the factors. Much of the schedule
has been completed. Student Scholars Day has taken place, where the information was presented.
The dam is still tentatively scheduled to come out late in the 2015 year, and post-removal data
will take place after the dam removal and restoration.

2. 2
Final Report
A remnant dam’s effects on a stream geomorphology, macroinvertebrate colonization, and
sediment distribution in Rum Creek, Kent County, MI
Jared Sartini
Abstract:
Rum Creek was hypothesized to be undergoing ecological deradation due to a remnant
dam’s presence within the creek. 6 transects were created within 200 meters upstream and
downstream of the remnant dam, where geomorphological and biological parameters were
measured including a percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera (%EPT) analysis, a
functional feeding group (FFG) analysis, Wolman Pebble counts, and erosion pin studies. No
significant statistical evidence was found comparing the upstream to the downstream sections
within different parameters, but patterns exist. Hopefully, the post-removal and restoration data
will further prove the initial hypothesis.
Introduction:
Rum Creek is an important, coldwater tributary to the Rogue River, a subwatershed of the
Grand River. The study site lies within an approximately 405 meter stretch of Rum Creek
flowing through Memorial Park in Rockford, MI, where the downstream portion begins
approximately 1/3 of a river mile upstream from its confluence with the Rogue River. Though
the dam is partially broken down, it still acts as a large concrete spillway which potentially
inhibits important stream geological, chemical, and biological functions.
The ecological problems are as follows: the channelization and confining of stream flow,
such as in a concrete spillway, forces water longitudinally downstream but prohibits it from
moving laterally into and from the floodplain. This has a negative impact on biota, nutrient
cycling, and high flow buffering, due to a disconnection from the floodplain (Junk, Bayley, and
Sparks 1989). The connection of groundwater and the active channel produces a natural, cut and
fill alleviation process vital to stream systems. This process is disrupted when regulation comes
into play. River regulation disconnects the active channel from the groundwater, the hyporheic
zone, the floodplain, and further from the riparian and upland communities surrounding it
(Stanford et al. 1996). Nakano and Murakami (2001) found that streams are responsible for
important energy transfers to the riparian forest and its inhabitants. The terrestrial to aquatic
transitional interface exhibit reciprocally subsidized relationships, proving the importance for
fluvial connectivity. Another main problem exists within the sedimentation processes. Storage of
bedload above a dam in the created slack water collects fine sediments while the downstream
section is starved from important nutrient cycling, habitat, and energy buffering from the
movement of fine sediments. When peak flows act within the active channel, large rocks or
obstructions can defer water unnaturally, causing a widening of the active channel through
scouring (Stanford et al. 1996).

3. 3
Many stakeholders exist within the project. The City of Rockford owns the dam. Parkside
Elementary School of Rockford Public Schools shares its playground with the park where the
dam exists. Park users, students, stream fisherman, users of the Rockford Community Cabin
within the park, dog walkers, bird watchers, state agencies such as the MDNR and MDEQ,
watershed alliances and organizations such as Trout Unlimited and Kent County Water
Conservation and more are all stakeholders of this stretch of stream.
Management objectives include removing the dam when funding becomes available and
restoring the gradient naturally with downed-woody-debris, stair-step style gradient control
structures. The anticipated benefits ecologically are numerous. I believe the removal of the dam
would restore natural hydrologic functions, macroinvertebrate assemblages, erosion and
geomorphologic functions (Fig. 1), improve the terrestrial ecosystems surrounding the riparian
zone, and it would lessen the risk of injury from park users and stakeholders. Anticipated risks
only occur during the construction/removal process. These should be low with proper signage
and public awareness. The remnant dam on Rum Creek acts as an ecologically degrading
fragmentation, while providing no benefit to the stakeholders.
Figure 1: A system diagram of the hypothesized ecological dynamics influenced by the
remnant dam on Rum Creek.

4. 4
Site analysis methods:
The site analysis methods for the Erosion Pins study in Rum Creek involved a modified
procedure used by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: wooden dowels were cut
into 12” sections, and 3 dowels per side of the stream bank were inserted per transect with
approximately 1” outside of the bank perpendicularly to the stream channel. One dowel was
input just above the water line at baseflow. A second dowel was input just underneath the top of
the bank, and a third dowel was input halfway between the top and bottom dowels. The erosion
pins were then measured after a three weeks, and erosion off of the banks was inferred from the
exposure of the dowels (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). The data was
collected for approximately a month. It has been compiled, graphed, and the upstream and
downstream averages were tested against one another using a paired sampled means T-test.
The site analysis methods for the Wolman pebble count involved using a continuous step-
toe method to randomly select 100 sediment samples. The data gatherer took a step and, without
looking, reached into the stream to grab a sediment sample. The grain the gatherer picked up was
measured by placing the sediment particle into a fixed size-range template. The sediment was
measured and announced, the data compiler recorded the sample, and the procedure was repeated
until all 100 samples are measured and recorded (Wolman, 1954). The data has been compiled,
graphed, and each transect was formed into a logarithmic, cumulative distribution.
The site analysis for the Surber sampling involved using a Surber sampler, which
contains a fine seine net and two .3 X .3 meter frames that are fixed at a 90 degree angle, one
with the net connected to the back. The sampler was placed in a riffle section with the net facing
downstream while the sediments are disturbed and the rocks were cleaned for a set amount of
time. In two cases, at transects 2 and 5, the Surber sampling took place approximately 5 meters
above the transect in order to sample a riffle section. I chose to employ two one-minute sampling
times at each transect (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Each of the pairs of
samples were compiled with one another to form 6 separate samples. The samples have been
collected, analyzed, and formed into %EPT and FFG analyses. A paired sampled means T-test
was conducted for the %EPT analysis.
Within the paired sampled means T-tests, an alpha level of .05 was used. If the p-value
came out to be less than .05, the null hypothesis, being that the sample means were not
significantly different, was rejected.
Site analysis results:
Bank erosion data from the erosion pins was collected from November 7, 2014 to
November 30, 2014. The pins were averaged into an average erosion per bank value (Figure 3)
and into an upstream and downstream comparison (Figure 2). When the upstream and
downstream values were tested against each other statistically with a T-test, the p-value resulted

5. 5
as .73, so the null hypothesis was not rejected, indicating no significant difference (Figure 2). In
Figure 3, no obvious patterns were found.
Figure 2: Bank erosion averaged across the pins to give an average for all banks upstream and
downstream in comparison. A T-test for the paired sampled means brought a p-value of .73, and
was not significant in terms of difference.
Figure 3: Bank erosion averaged across each transect. No obvious patterns in relation to the dam,
residing between transects 3 and 4, were found.
The Wolman Pebble Counts were compiled into logarithmic, cumulative sediment
distributions, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows an upstream and downstream
comparison of the sediment distributions. No obvious patterns were found, as they’re nearly
identical. The D150 values, or medians, were calculated and were 4mm and 2mm respectively,
for the upstream and downstream sections. This indicates that the downstream section had
slightly more small grain sediment as silt and sand than the upstream section. This also indicates
that the upstream section had a higher presence of fine gravel.
-0.35
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
Banklossininches
Average Bank Erosion Per Bank
upstream
downstream
-0.4
-0.35
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6
BankChange(inches)
Transect
Average Bank Change

6. 6
Figure 4: Logarithmic, cumulative sediment distributions for the upstream and downstream
sections for comparison.
Figure 5: Logarithmic, cumulative sediment distributions for the all of the transects.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 10 100
% Cummulative Sediment Distribution by Transect
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1 10 100
% Cummulative Sediment Distributions
Downstream
Upstream

7. 7
Figure 5 shows that transects 1, 2, 4, and 5 have vastly different sediment distributions
than transects 3 and 6. Transects 3 and 6, the transect just above the dam and the farthest
downstream transect both have an over 80% makeup of sand and silt. Unfortunately, there is no
provable link from erosional data to the sediments as of now. Where transects 3 and 6 have an
extreme amount of small sediment accumulation, transect 3 lost a quarter inch of sediments from
each of its banks, whereas transect 6’s banks gained .05 inches on average.
Figure 6: %EPT in the upstream and downstream reaches compared. A paired sampled means T-
test brought a p-value of .054.
Figure 7: %EPT in each transect.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
%EPT
% EPT Per Section
upstream
downstream
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 2 3 4 5 6
%EPT
Transect
% EPT per transect

8. 8
Figure 8: An FFG analysis per transect.
Figure 6 shows a %EPT comparison between the upstream and downstream sections. A
paired sampled means T-test brought a p-value of .054, which was nearly significant with an
alpha level of .05. In Figure 7 that the %EPT at transect 3, just above the dam, had a value of 0,
proving a very low habitat or local water quality. The %EPT data also doesn’t seem to be a cause
of sedimentation. Transects 3 and 6 have an extreme amount of small grain sediment, but
transect 3 has a 0%EPT and transect 6 has the highest %EPT of any transect. Transect 6 is
potentially an outlier, and more data should be taken to establish better data patterns. Figure 8
shows the transects’ Surber sampling separated into functional feeding groups. Transect 3 has no
scrapers, which is most likely from the large amount of sedimentation and lack of cobble or
boulder habitats (Figure 5), where transect 6 had a higher amount of cobble and boulders.
Transect 3 also shows a relatively high concentration of omnivores and shredders. Due to the
decreased velocity behind the dam, lots of coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM)
accumulates there, giving the best habitat for shredders and piercer predators. Transect 4 also has
no scrapers, which is likely due to the perturbation of the sediments from the concrete spillway.
Transects 1, 2, 5, and 6 show relatively stable, equal concentrations of different FFGs.
Management recommendations:
The dam should be removed as soon as possible. The jagged concrete and rebar pose a
potential threat to a wandering child from the elementary school a hundred yards away, and the
extreme change and degradation of high quality macroinvertebrate habitat smothered by
sediments from the dam shows that at least above the dam, the dam is having an immediate,
negative impact on the macroinvertebrate populations which serve as biological indicators for
distinguishing high quality habitats from impaired ones.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
FFG Relative Abundance
Shredders Scrapers Collector Filterers Collector Gatherers
Omnivores Engulfer Predators Piercer Predators

9. 9
Monitoring procedures:
The monitoring procedures should include following the site analysis methods to
complete the study over again after the dam is removed and the stretch is restored naturally with
downed-woody-debris, stair-step style gradient control structures. The data should be taken
within the month of November so most of the atmospheric and physical factors will be as similar
as possible. This should be repeated for 3 years after the removal and restoration in order to get
the clearest picture of the restoration’s success.
Hopefully, the post-removal and restoration data will show an overall decrease in erosion
downstream from the dam, a %EPT increase in transects 3-6, and a vastly different, more natural
sediment composition for transects 3 and 6.
Conclusion:
Poulous et. al found an increase in fluvial specialist fishes above and below a former
dam site, just a couple of years after removal. They conclude that dam removal can have positive
impacts on fish communities, where habitat availability and fluvial connectivity are increased or
restored (2014). It’s also been found that disturbed sediment regimes that occur from dam
removal can have lasting effects for years after (Tullos, Finn, and Walter, 2014). Though it may
take some time, the removal and restoration of the dam should restore natural sediment regimes
to transects 3 and 6, macroinvertebrate communities, and reduce erosion. Though few
correlations were found from the pre-removal data, the post-removal data will hopefully provide
more evidence for the impairing effects dams have on stream communities. The dam removal
will also meet the needs of the local communities and stakeholders.

10. 10
References:
Junk, W.J., P.B. Bayley, and R.E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain
systems. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106:110-127.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Standard operating procedure monitoring
stream bank erosion with erosion pins. Available online at
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-nps-Black-River-wmp2_303613_7.pdf; last
accessed February 14, 2015.
Nakano, S. and M. Murakami. 2001. Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between
terrestrial and aquatic food webs. National Academy of Sciences. 98(1):166-170.
Poulos, H. M., et al. 2014. Fish Assemblage Response to a Small Dam Removal in the Eightmile
River System, Connecticut, USA. Environmental management 54.5:1090-1101.
Stanford, J.A. and J.V. Ward. 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity
and the hyporheic corridor. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 12(1):48-60.
Stanford, J.A., J.V. Ward, W.J. Liss, C.A. Frissell, R.N. Williams, J.A. Lichatowich, and C.C.
Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research
and Management. 12:391-413.
Tullos, D. D., D. S. Finn, and C. Walter. 2014. Geomorphic and Ecological Disturbance and
Recovery from Two Small Dams and Their Removal. PloS one 9.9: e108091.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocols.
Available online at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/monitoring/rsl/bioassessment/ch07main.cfm;
last accessed February 14, 2015.
Ward, J.V. 1989. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 8(1):2-
8.
Wolman, G. M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. American Geophysical
Union Transactions. 35(6):951-956