Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Biological and Habitat Assessment 

of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5009

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover background photograph. Looking downstream at a macroinvertebrate sample site in the 

concrete channel reach of the Rouge River in 2018. Photograph by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Inset photographs:

Top. Boat electrofishing survey on the Rouge River. Photograph by H. Harrington, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, 2018.

Center. Spiny softshell turtle basking on a log during the Rouge River herpetofauna survey in 

June 2018. Photograph by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Bottom. Captured pumpkinseed during boat electrofishing surveys on the Rouge River in 

June 2018. Photograph by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Biological and Habitat Assessment of the 

Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

By Edward F. Roseman, Jason Fischer, Robin L. DeBruyne, and Scott A. Jackson

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5009

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Roseman E.F., Fischer J., DeBruyne R.L., and Jackson, S.A., 2020, Biological and habitat assessment of the 

lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5009, 54 p., https://

doi.org/10.3133/sir20205009.

Associated data for this publication: 

DeBruyne, R.L., Roseman, E.F., Fischer, J.L., and Jackson, S.A., 2020, Pre-restoration biological and physical 

assessment of the lower Rouge River, MI, 2018: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P9GUZ668.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

We thank S. Altus, J. Beaubian, C. Bourgeois, J. Lepper, C. Lloyd, M. Lubarski, and 

K. Scribner, under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center 

and T. Tucker, University of Toledo Lake Erie Center, Department of Environmental Sciences, 

for assistance with various aspects of field and laboratory work. Handling of fish was done 

according to the American Fisheries Society guidelines for care and use (https://fisheries.org/

policy-media/science-guidelines/guidelines-for-the-use-of-fishes-in-research/). This work was 

supported by a grant from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is contribution 2020–1 of the 

University of Toledo Lake Erie Center.

We thank the following U.S. Geological Survey personnel: M. Chriscinske and J. Craig for their 

assistance with laboratory processing. 

v

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................4

Photographic Monitoring ....................................................................................................................4

Qualitative Habitat Assessment .........................................................................................................4

Quantitative Habitat Assessment.......................................................................................................4

Herpetofauna Assessment..................................................................................................................4

Qualitative Macroinvertebrate Assessment ....................................................................................6

Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Assessment..................................................................................6

Fish Assessment ...................................................................................................................................6

Photographic Monitoring of Streambanks ................................................................................................6

Qualitative Habitat Assessment ................................................................................................................21

Quantitative Vegetation Habitat Assessment .........................................................................................21

Site-specific Depth and Velocity Characteristics ..................................................................................21

Site-specific Water Quality Characteristics............................................................................................25

Herpetofauna Assessment.........................................................................................................................27

Qualitative Macroinvertebrate Assessment ...........................................................................................27

Fisheries Electrofishing Assessment........................................................................................................37

Fisheries Minnow Trap Assessment.........................................................................................................45

Discussion.....................................................................................................................................................50

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................50

Appendix 1.....................................................................................................................................................53

Figures

1. Map showing locations of fish, macroinvertebrate, herpetofauna, and habitat 

sampling sites and reaches in the lower Rouge River, Michigan, and surrounding 

land cover ......................................................................................................................................2

2. Photographs of the most upriver assessment site (RR–001) in the lower 

Rouge River, upriver from the concrete channel reach and just downriver of 

the Henry Ford Estate Dam .........................................................................................................8

3. Photographs of assessment site RR–002 in the lower Rouge River, upriver from 

the concrete channel reach .......................................................................................................9

4. Photographs of the lowermost assessment site (RR–003) upriver from the 

concrete channel reach in the lower Rouge River. The Michigan Avenue Bridge 

that marks the start of the concrete channel is visible in the backdrop of the 

downriver photo..........................................................................................................................10

5. Photographs of the uppermost assessment site (RR–004) in the concrete 

channel reach of the lower Rouge River. The Michigan Avenue Bridge that marks 

the start of the concrete channel is visible in the backdrop of the upriver photo...........11

6. Photographs of assessment site RR–005 in the concrete channel reach. 

The Southfield Freeway Bridge is visible in the backdrop of the downriver photo.........12

7. Photographs of assessment site RR–006 in the concrete channel reach.

The Rotunda Drive bridge is visible in the background of the downriver photo..............13
vi

8. Photographs of assessment site RR–007 in the concrete channel reach. 

Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right and left banks ..........14

9. Photographs of assessment site RR–008 in the concrete channel reach. 

Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right and left banks. 

The Interstate–94 bridge is visible in the background of the downriver photo................15

10. Photographs of assessment site RR–009 in the concrete channel reach. 

Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right and left banks. 

The Greenfield Road bridge is visible in the background of the downriver photo and 

the Melvindale Civic Arena is in the background of the photo facing the right bank.....16

11. Photographs of the assessment site RR–010 in the downstream control reach. 

This is the first site immediately downriver of the part of the lower Rouge River 

concrete channel reach slated for restoration .....................................................................17

12. Photographs of the assessment site RR–011 in the downstream control reach. 

Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right and left banks. 

The Schaefer Highway bridge is visible in the background of the downriver photo......18

13. Photographs of the assessment site RR–012 in the downstream control reach. 

Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right and left banks. 

A pipeline and railway bridge are visible in the background of the upriver photo..........19

14. Photographs of the right bank at the upstream end of site RR–001, near the 

Henry Ford Estate Dam, showing the bank before and after riparian vegetation 

was removed to build a fish passage construction over the dam......................................20

15. Water velocity at channel cross sections measured with an acoustic Doppler 

current profiler on June 15, 2018, representative of sites in the upstream control 

reach (RR–002), concrete channel reach (RR–004), and downstream control 

reach (RR–012)............................................................................................................................24

16. Graph showing mean hourly water temperatures in the upstream control, 

concrete channel, and downstream control reaches of the lower Rouge River 

from June 4, 2018, to December 10, 2018................................................................................25

17. Graph showing mean macroinvertebrate densities by reach and month 

collected with Hester-Dendy samplers...................................................................................35

18. Graph showing mean percentage of the total Hester-Dendy catch composed 

by each taxonomic group..........................................................................................................36

19. Graph showing mean catch per unit effort of fish collected with boat electrofishing 

upstream, downstream, and within the Rouge River concrete channel slated 

for restoration..............................................................................................................................42

20. Graph showing mean percentage of the total boat electrofishing catch 

composed by feeding, tolerance, and other groups, identified by the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality surface water assessment protocol, 

upstream, downstream, and within the lower Rouge River concrete channel................43

21. Length-frequency histogram of Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) 

collected with boat electrofishing during June and September fish collections 

in the lower Rouge River............................................................................................................44

22. Length-frequency histograms of game fish collected with boat electrofishing 

and minnow traps during June and September fish collections in the lower 

Rouge River..................................................................................................................................45

23. Graph showing mean catch per unit effort of fish collected with minnow traps 

upstream, downstream, and within the Rouge River concrete channel...........................46

24. Graph showing mean percentage of the total minnow trap catch composed 

by feeding, tolerance, and other groups, identified by the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality surface water assessment protocol from the upstream 

control, concrete channel, and downstream control reaches ...........................................49
vii

Tables

1. Coordinates of center points of fish, macroinvertebrate, herpetofauna, and habitat 

sampling sites in the lower Rouge River, Michigan................................................................3

2. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality qualitative habitat survey scores 

for glide/pool streams from each reach and site in the lower Rouge River.......................5

3. Taxonomy classification; functional groupings; State rare, threatened, or 

endangered listing status; and native status of fish collected from the lower 

Rouge River in June and September 2018................................................................................7

4. Percent of vegetation tow samples where periphyton and benthic algae were 

observed for each site and reach mean by date. Four samples were conducted 

at each site in June and September........................................................................................22

5. Summary statistics of water depths and water velocities measured in the 

lower Rouge River with an acoustic Doppler current profiler............................................23

6. Water quality parameters recorded during fish and macroinvertebrate 

sampling in the lower Rouge River. Mean values are reported by site.............................26

7. Counts of herpetofauna observed along the lower Rouge River during June 

and September 2018 surveys....................................................................................................28

8. Grouping and taxonomic classification of macroinvertebrates collected from 

the lower Rouge River in June and September 2018............................................................29

9. Individuals and taxa richness of macroinvertebrates collected from the 

lower Rouge River during qualitative sampling in June 2018..............................................30

10. Individuals and taxa richness of macroinvertebrates collected from the 

lower Rouge River during qualitative sampling in September 2018...................................31

11. Index of biological integrity scores from qualitative macroinvertebrate 

sampling in the lower Rouge River in June and September 2018 ......................................32

12. Taxa total densities (in individuals per square meter) and richness of 

macroinvertebrates on Hester-Dendy colonization samplers in the lower 

Rouge River during June 2018 ..................................................................................................33

13. Taxa total densities (individuals per square meter) and richness of 

macroinvertebrates on Hester-Dendy colonization samplers in the 

lower Rouge River in September 2018 ....................................................................................34

14. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per hour and species 

richness of fish collected with boat electrofishing from the lower Rouge River in 

June 2018........................................................................................................................................ 38

15. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per hour and species 

richness of fish collected with boat electrofishing from the lower Rouge River in 

September 2018...........................................................................................................................40

16. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per 12 hours, and species

 richness of fish collected in minnow traps from the lower Rouge River in 

June 2018 .....................................................................................................................................47

17. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per 12 hours and 

species richness of fish collected in minnow traps from the lower Rouge River 

in September 2018 ......................................................................................................................48
viii

Conversion Factors

International System of Units to U.S. customary units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

kilometer (km) 0.5400 mile, nautical (nmi) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square meter (m2

) 0.0002471 acre 

square meter (m2

) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

Volume

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

liter (L) 61.02 cubic inch (in3

) 

Flow rate

meter per second (m/s) 3.281 foot per second (ft/s) 

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C = (°F – 32) / 1.8.

Supplemental Information

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in either milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25 °C).

Abbreviations

CPUE catch per unit effort

IBI Index of biotic integrity

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

spp. species

SWAS Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers
Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge 

River, Michigan, 2018

By Edward F. Roseman,1 Jason Fischer,2 Robin L. DeBruyne,2 and Scott A. Jackson2

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

University of Toledo.

Abstract

A key component of evaluating the success of habitat 

remediation projects is determining preremediation conditions, 

biotic and abiotic, to establish a baseline and compare with 

postproject conditions. The Rouge River, Michigan, is a Great 

Lakes Area of Concern with a listed Beneficial Use Impairment related to loss of fish and wildlife habitat. A biological 

and habitat assessment was completed in the lower Rouge 

River, focused along a nearly 7-kilometer stretch of river that 

includes a concrete channel anticipated to be removed by 

2022, to determine prerestoration conditions. Surveys documented the presence and quality of physical habitat, presence 

of herpetofauna, and quantified macroinvertebrate and fish 

assemblages at 12 sites (3 upstream from the concrete channel, 6 within the concrete channel, and 3 downstream from 

the concrete channel). Macroinvertebrate assemblages were 

dominated by Chironomidae and Oligochaeta for June and 

September. The electrofishing catch per unit effort was driven 

by Notropis atherinoides (emerald shiner) catches in June 

and emerald shiner and Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) 

catches in September. Graptemys geographica (northern map 

turtle) was the most common reptile observed throughout the 

lower Rouge River. No submergent macrophytes were discovered, and riparian vegetation was sparse in the concrete channel section. No sites scored “excellent” (total score greater 

than 154), upstream control sites scored “good” for overall 

qualitative habitat assessments (total score 105–154), and all 

concrete channel and downstream control sites were ranked as 

“marginal” (total score 56–104) or “poor” habitat (total score 

0–55). Results from this assessment can be used to compare 

with postremediation projects in the lower Rouge River.

Introduction

The Rouge River, Michigan, is a major tributary of 

the Detroit River and historically supported large spawning 

migrations of potadromous fish including Sander vitreus

(walleye) and family Catostomidae (suckers) (fig. 1; Beam 

and Braunscheidel, 1998). Forest and wetlands were historically the dominant land cover types in the watershed; however, 

the growth of the city of Detroit (not shown) and surrounding 

area reduced forest and wetland coverage to less than 

(<) 20 percent of the watershed, and now more than 30 percent 

of land cover is impervious surface (Beam and Braunscheidel, 

1998; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011). The large proportion of impervious surfaces has increased storm water runoff 

rates, and the Rouge River has a flashy hydrology with minimal groundwater inputs (Price, 2014). The flashy hydrology 

is exemplified in the channelized concrete part of the Rouge 

River downstream from the Henry Ford Estate Dam, where, as 

part of a 1962 flood control project, more than 6 river kilometers were reconfigured as a paved V-shaped channel with 

no flood plain (fig. 1; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011). 

Water velocities through this part of the river can be particularly elevated, especially during spring snowmelt, which may 

limit or deter upstream fish migration for spawning and foraging (Beam and Braunscheidel, 1998). Conversely, the flows 

are depressed during dry periods in summer and early autumn 

because of the straight and smooth river bottom in the concrete 

section. Low flows, coupled with a lack of riparian vegetation, can lead to poor water quality (for example, low levels 

of dissolved oxygen and high water temperatures; Beam and 

Braunscheidel, 1998). Efforts within the watershed to reduce 

pollution and combine sewer overflows (Cave and others, 

2004; Price, 2014) have provided opportunities for focused 

habitat restoration in the lower Rouge River.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig01

0 1 2 K

Base modified from Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, Coulston, J., Herold, N., Wickham, J. and K. Megown, 2015. 0 1 Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States—representing a decade of land cover change information, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, 345–353. 1:37,000-scale digital data

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

Cover

WetlandWaterOtherLow intensity urbanMid/high intensity urbanForest

EXPLANATI

! !

! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! !

! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

!!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

DETROIT RIVER

MICHIGAN LAKE ERIE

Map area

Rouge

River wat e rshed

RR–0

RR–010 RR–009

RR–008

RR–007

RR–006

RR–005 RR–004

RR–003

RR–002

RR–001

HENRY FORD ESTATE DAM

Ro u g e Rive r wa t e rs h e d

83°14' 83°13' 83°12' 83°11' 

42°18'42°17'

Rouge River

CANADA

UNITED STATES

Figure 1. Locations of fish, macroinvertebrate, herpetofauna, and habitat sampling sites and reaches in the lower Rouge River, Michigan, and 
Introduction 3

The loss of human beneficial uses (for example, fish and 

wildlife consumption) and ecosystem services (for example, 

fish and wildlife habitat) from the declines in aquatic habitats 

and in fish and wildlife populations, coupled with historical 

environmental degradation, led the Rouge River to be listed 

as a Great Lakes Area of Concern under the 1987 United 

States-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Large 

investments directed at habitat improvements and water quality have been made within the Rouge River Watershed, such as 

reconnecting diverted meander bends and removing combined sewer overflows. However, removing the beneficial use 

impairment related to loss of fish and wildlife habitat requires 

sound scientific assessment of restoration efforts. Riparian and 

instream habitat enhancement within the concrete part of the 

lower Rouge River is one such project identified by the 2012 

Rouge River Beneficial Use Impairment Delisting Strategy 

(Craig and others, 2012). Quantifying the baseline fish abundances, assemblages, and environmental metrics (for example, 

water velocity, dissolved oxygen, and aquatic plant coverage) 

within the paved and adjacent sections of the river is crucial 

to guiding the development of restoration projects. Before 

restoration, quantifying biological and physical conditions is 

needed to evaluate the efficacy of restoration, inform decisions 

regarding the beneficial use impairment redesignation, and 

inform future restoration projects in the Rouge River.

In this report, we present results from assessments completed in 2018 of biotic and abiotic habitat conditions, macroinvertebrate assemblages, fish assemblages, and herpetofauna at 12 sampling sites distributed across 3 reaches (fig. 1, 

table 1). Objectives for these assessments were

1. Provide photographic documentation of site conditions.

2. Quantify biotic and abiotic components of instream fish 

habitat upstream, downstream, and within the portion of 

the concrete channel slated for restoration in the Rouge 

River.

3. Quantify herpetofauna presence and abundance 

upstream, downstream, and within the concrete channel 

slated for restoration.

4. Quantify macroinvertebrate density, assemblage composition, and biotic integrity upstream, downstream, 

and within the portion of the concrete channel slated for 

restoration.

5. Quantify fish abundance and species composition 

upstream, downstream, and within the portion of concrete channel slated for restoration.

Stream reaches were defined based on proximity to 

the concrete channel slated for habitat restoration (upstream 

control reach, concrete channel reach, and downstream 

control reach). The 1-km upstream control reach was the 

only reach without a concrete channel, whereas the 4.2-km 

concrete channel reach and 1.7-km downstream control reach 

had been channelized as a V-shaped concrete channel. Three 

250-meter (m) long sampling sites were in the upstream control reach, 6 sites in the concrete channel reach, and 3 sites in 

the downstream control reach (fig. 1).

Table 1. Coordinates of center points of fish, macroinvertebrate, herpetofauna, and habitat sampling sites in the 

lower Rouge River, Michigan. 

[See figure 1 for a map of site locations. Coordinates are in the geographic 

coordinate system World Geodetic System 1984.]

Site Latitude Longitude

Upstream control reach

RR–001 42.31212 −83.2320

RR–002 42.31041 −83.2294

RR–003 42.31079 −83.2244

Concrete channel reach

RR–004 42.30779 −83.2206

RR–005 42.30709 −83.2182

RR–006 42.30246 −83.2018

RR–007 42.29920 −83.1960

RR–008 42.29699 −83.1922

RR–009 42.29481 −83.1824

Downstream control reach

RR–010 42.29521 −83.1765

RR–011 42.29212 −83.1703

RR–012 42.29055 −83.1657
4 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

Methods

This section details methods used during the prerestoration abiotic and biotic assessments in the lower Rouge River, 

Michigan.

Photographic Monitoring

Photographic monitoring consisted of a series of four 

photographs taken around a center point at each sampling site 

(table 1) looking upriver, downriver, and at both banks. Left 

and right banks were designated while looking in the downstream direction; thus, the left and right banks correspond to 

the north and south sides of the river corridor, respectively. 

Two sets of photographs were taken, one on June 21, 2018, 

and the other on September 13, 2018.

Qualitative Habitat Assessment

Instream habitat was characterized using visual and 

quantitative methods. Visual assessments were completed 

following the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols 

for Wadeable Streams and Rivers (SWAS) for glide/pool 

streams (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2008). Each site was visually assessed and scored based on 

the 10 metrics defined by the glide/pool stream assessment 

protocol by 3 separate assessors during the June and September sampling events (see table 2 for specific metrics). Scores 

for each metric were based on a 0–20 scale, with larger values 

indicating a higher quality. The scores from the 10 metrics 

were then summed to index the overall quality of habitat for 

aquatic biota at a site, with scores greater than 154 indicating 

“excellent” habitat, scores between 105 and 154 indicating 

“good” habitat, scores between 56 and 104 indicating “marginal” habitat, and scores < 55 indicating “poor” habitat. Site 

scores were averaged across individual sampling events to 

determine the mean metric and mean site scores. Mean reach 

scores were calculated from metric scores pooled across assessors, sites, and sampling events.

Quantitative Habitat Assessment

Quantitative measurements of submergent vegetation, 

water depth, velocity, and water quality parameters (water 

temperature, water transparency, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and pH) also were taken at each site during the June 

and September sampling events. Submergent vegetation was 

sampled using a grapnel hook lined with 1-centimeter (cm) 

square wire mesh (Schloesser and Manny, 1982). The grapnel hook was used to make four 10-m tows at each location 

(two perpendicular to the left bank and two perpendicular to 

the right bank). Data were summarized as the percentage of 

grapnel tows where the specific vegetation type was present 

because periphyton and benthic algae were infrequently collected. Water depth and velocity measurements were taken 

at the upstream and downstream ends of each site with a 

Sontek M9 acoustic Doppler current profiler following the 

U.S. Geological Survey standard methods protocol (Mueller 

and others, 2013) on June 15, 2018, and September 14, 2018. 

Four replicate measurements were taken along each acoustic 

Doppler current profiler transect: two moving from the left to 

right bank and two moving in the opposite direction. Replicate 

transects were reviewed to determine if global positioning system (or GPS) or measurement errors were in the data, in which 

case, data were omitted from further analyses. Mean water 

depths and velocities were calculated and reported with the 

standard deviation and coefficient of variation to describe the 

magnitude and variability at each site and reach. Water temperature at each site was measured with HOBO temperature 

loggers programed to record a temperature every 30 minutes 

from June 4, 2018, to October 4, 2018. Additional temperature 

loggers were deployed from October 4, 2018, to December 11, 

2018, at one site in the upstream control reach (RR–002), on 

in the concrete channel reach (RR–008), and one in the downstream control reach (RR–012). Before and after deployment, 

temperature loggers were placed in the same location and 

allowed to record temperature for at least 48 hours to determine if there were any discrepancies in temperature readings. 

The temperature logger placed in the concrete channel reach 

from October to December consistently read 0.5 degree Celsius lower than the other loggers and measurements from this 

logger were therefore increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius to correct the bias. During biotic sampling events, a Secchi disk was 

used to measure water transparency and an Orion Star A329 

multiparameter meter was used to measure dissolved oxygen, 

conductivity, and pH. Water quality parameters were summarized as site and reach means by sampling month.

Herpetofauna Assessment

Visual encounter surveys were completed for reptiles 

and amphibians on foot and by boat on June 21, 2018, and 

September 13, 2018. Boat surveys started at the Henry Ford 

Estate Dam and proceeded down river using boat engines 

minimally so as not to disturb animals on the banks. The river 

was searched with binoculars for any herpetofauna, including any individuals basking along the shoreline and on any 

structures extending into the water (such as logs or vegetation 

mats). Terrestrial surveys consisting of 10-minute meandering 

transects along the river bank were completed at each site by 

two technicians. Only one bank of the river was assessed at 

each site (determined by appropriate landing for the boat), and 

sites RR–011 and RR–012 were not surveyed by land because 

of the lack of stable ground and dense stands of Phragmites

(reed) species (spp.) that prevented access to the riparian zone. 

Reptiles and amphibians were searched for visually, and all 

groundcover objects were checked.
Table 2. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality qualitative habitat survey scores for glide/pool streams (Michigan Department of Environme

each reach and site in the lower Rouge River. Individual metric scores range from 0 to 20. Scores 17–20 were considered “excellent,” 11–16 considere“marginal,” and 0–4 considered “poor.” Total scores range from 0–200, with a total score greater than 154 considered “excellent,” 105–154 considereconsidered “marginal,” and 0–55 considered “poor.”

[--, no data]

Upstream control Concrete channel Do

Metric

RR–001 RR–002 RR–003 Reach 

mean

RR–004 RR–005 RR–006 RR–007 RR–008 RR–009 Reach 

mean

RR–010 R

Epifaunal substrate 12.3 12.5 12.3 12.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.3 3.7 1.0 3.3 

Pool substrate 8.5 7.3 7.8 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.5 

Pool variability 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Sediment deposition 18.2 18.3 17.2 17.9 19.0 18.8 18.7 18.8 18.5 18.7 18.8 17.8 

Flow status -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Volume 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.2 7.3 8.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.7 7.9 8.5 

Flashiness 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.2 1.5 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.2 4.2 2.3 5.7 

Channel alteration 15.7 14.3 14.7 14.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.3 2.2 

Channel sinuosity 8.5 8.3 7.0 7.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.5 1.8 0.9 3.8 

Bank stability -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Left bank 4.7 4.3 4.8 4.6 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.9 10.0 Right bank 4.7 4.3 4.8 4.6 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.9 10.0 

Vegetative protection -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Left bank 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7 5.5 1.3 3.3 Right bank 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.6 3.3 

Riparian vegetation 

width

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Left bank 9.5 9.3 8.7 9.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 4.3 2.0 5.7 Right bank 9.5 9.3 8.7 9.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.8 1.7 5.5 

Total score 126.7 124.2 122.3 124.4 53.0 55.2 53.8 53.5 53.8 72.7 57.0 81.0 8
6 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

Qualitative Macroinvertebrate Assessment

Macroinvertebrates were sampled at each of the 

12 sample sites using qualitative and quantitative methods. 

Qualitative sampling was completed on June 14 and 21, 

2018, and September10 and 13, 2018, following the MDEQ 

SWAS protocol for macroinvertebrates, using sweep sampling with triangular dip nets. Two technicians swept the 

substrate, aquatic vegetation, large woody debris, and other 

instream habitat along the stream banks with dip nets for a 

total sampling time of 20 minutes. Contents of the nets were 

placed in a 5-gallon bucket after each sweep, and the contents 

of the bucket were passed through a 1-millimeter (mm) sieve 

to separate macroinvertebrates from silt and fine particulate 

organic matter. Samples were preserved in 95-percent ethanol 

(June) or 10-percent dyed and buffered formalin (September) 

and brought back to the laboratory for processing. The first 

300 organisms were removed from the sample and identified 

to the lowest possible taxonomic level. If a sample contained 

fewer than 300 individuals, all individuals were identified. 

Following the methods established by the MDEQ SWAS 

protocol (Creal and others, 1996; Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality, 2008), an index of biological integrity 

(IBI) was calculated for each site. Mean reach IBI scores were 

compared to the regional standards (Huron/Erie Lake Plains 

region [not shown]; Omernik and Gallant, 1988) for “poor” 

to “excellent” macroinvertebrate assemblages, based on taxa 

richness and abundance of tolerant and intolerant taxa.

Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Assessment

Hester-Dendy colonization samplers were used to collect 

macroinvertebrates from deeper depths in the river. HesterDendy samplers consisted of 14 plates that were 7.5-cm in 

diameter spaced 3.2 mm (eight plates), 6.4 mm (one plate), 

9.5 mm (two plates), and 12.7 mm (two plates) apart, totaling 

0.16 square meter of surface area. Samplers were sampled in 

gangs of three on a 15-m line weighted with an anchor at each 

end. Hester-Dendy samplers were deployed on June 4, 2018, 

and August 30, 2018, and soaked for 37 and 35 days, respectively. At the end of each soak period, Hester-Dendy samplers 

were retrieved, and samples were preserved in 10-percent 

dyed and buffered formalin. All individuals within a sample 

were then identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible and 

enumerated; mean taxon densities and proportions of the total 

catch were calculated for each site and reach.

Fish Assessment

Sampling was completed using boat electrofishing and 

minnow traps during June 13–14 and September 10–11. 

A pulsed-direct current boat electrofishing unit was used to 

target large-bodied and pelagic fishes at each of the 12 sample 

sites following American Fisheries Society guidelines for 

standard sampling methods for nonwadeable rivers (Guy and 

others, 2009; Miranda, 2009). Electrofishing began at the 

upstream end of each site and proceeded downriver along a 

transect parallel to a bank (left or right) that was randomly 

selected before sampling. Sampling was carried out for 

5 minutes, and two technicians with dip-nets were stationed at 

the bow of the boat to collect immobilized fish. Minnow traps 

(0.6-cm wire mesh traps, 42 cm long and 23 cm in diameter 

with a 2.5-cm funneled opening at each end) were used to collect small benthic fishes that were not effectively targeted with 

boat electrofishing following the methods described by Fischer 

and others (2018). Minnow traps were set in gangs of five on 

a 15-m line weighted with an anchor on each end. Each trap 

was baited with approximately 28 grams of cheese and fished 

overnight. The catch per unit effort (CPUE) was calculated as 

the number of fish collected per hour for boat electrofishing 

and the number of fish collected per 12 hours for minnow 

traps. Fish were aggregated into functional groups identified 

by the MDEQ SWAS protocol (table 3), the mean CPUE, and 

the proportion of the total catch within the three study reaches 

that was calculated for each functional group. Two additional 

groups, designated as “other,” also were created to represent 

fishes not belonging to one of the three feeding groups or 

two of the tolerance groups identified by the MDEQ SWAS 

protocol.

Photographic Monitoring of 

Streambanks

Banks at the three upstream control reach sites were 

heavily vegetated with a mixture of trees and shrubs that overhung the river channel (figs. 2–4). Large woody debris was 

present throughout this section of the river, and many fallen 

trees extended laterally into the river channel. The banks in 

this section of the river were nearly vertical, with bare patches 

and erosional scars extending more than 0.23 m above the 

water surface. In contrast, riparian vegetation was sparse at the 

six sites within the portion of the concrete channel slated for 

restoration (figs. 5–10). At these sites, riparian vegetation was 

limited to patches of Phragmites spp. and Typha spp. (cattails) 

that had established within the cracks of the concrete. However, a dense stand of Phragmites spp. was along the left bank 

of site RR–009 (fig. 10), the downstream-most site in this section. The bank vegetation above the concrete part of the channel was dominated by grasses, with a few trees. Patches of 

Phragmites spp. and Carduoideae (thistle) were also above the 

concrete part of the channel. Large woody debris in this section of the river tended to be oriented parallel to the channel 

and was limited to the bank and channel edge. The concrete 

channel did not seem to have changed since being constructed, 

and the banks were gradually sloped with no evidence of erosion. Water levels increased relative to the top edge of the concrete channel as sites progressed downriver, and this increase 

was most noticeable in the downstream control reach. Only a 

few feet of the concrete channel were visible above the water 
Photographic Monitoring of Streambanks 7

Table 3. Taxonomy classification; functional groupings; State rare, threatened, or endangered listing status; and native status 

of fish collected from the lower Rouge River in June and September 2018. Species includes the scientific name and the common 

name. Tolerance and feed guild classifications were taken from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (2008).

[RTE, rare, threatened, or endangered]

Family Scientific name (common name) Tolerance 

guild

Feeding 

guild

Lithophilic 

spawner

RTE

species Native

Amiidae Amia calva (bowfin) Tolerant Piscivore No No Yes

Atherinopsidae Labidesthes sicculus (brook silverside) Other Insectivore No No Yes

Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii (white sucker) Tolerant Omnivore Yes No Yes

Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill) Other Insectivore No No Yes

Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish) Tolerant Insectivore No No Yes

Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass) Other Piscivore No No Yes

Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed sunfish) Other Insectivore No No Yes

Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris (rockbass) Intolerant Piscivore No No Yes

Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu (smallmouth bass) Intolerant Piscivore No No Yes

Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) Other Other No No Yes

Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus (bluntnose minnow) Tolerant Omnivore No No Yes

Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio (common carp) Tolerant Omnivore No No No

Cyprinidae Notropis atherinoides (emerald shiner) Other Insectivore No No Yes

Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow) Tolerant Omnivore No No Yes

Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas (golden shiner) Tolerant Omnivore No No Yes

Cyprinidae Carassius auratus (goldfish) Tolerant Omnivore No No No

Cyprinidae Cyprinella spiloptera (spotfin shiner) Other Insectivore No No Yes

Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius (spottail shiner) Intolerant Insectivore No No Yes

Esocidae Esox lucius (northern pike) Other Piscivore No No Yes

Gobiidae Neogobius melanostomus (round goby) Other Insectivore No No No

Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis (yellow bullhead) Tolerant Omnivore No No Yes

Moronidae Morone chrysops (white bass) Other Piscivore No No Yes

Moronidae Morone americana (white perch) Other Piscivore No No No

Percidae Sander vitreus (walleye) Other Piscivore Yes No Yes

Percidae Perca flavescens (yellow perch) Other Other No No Yes

Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum) Tolerant Insectivore No No Yes

line at site RR–010, and the concrete channel was completely 

submerged at sites RR–011 and RR–012 (figs. 11–13). Riparian vegetation was more prevalent in the downstream control 

reach than in the concrete channel reach slated for restoration and consisted of Phragmites spp. and overhanging trees. 

Large woody debris in the downstream control reach tended to 

extend laterally into the channel. In general, vegetation, water 

levels, and bank structure remained similar between June and 

September at all sites; therefore, the photographs taken in June 

were representative of conditions in September. The exception 

was a large amount of riparian vegetation absent from the right 

(southwest) bank at the upstream end of site RR–001 (fig. 14) 

as part of construction of a fish passage over the Henry Ford 

Estate Dam.
MAD19 11913 IP105540 Roseman fig02

Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–001 June

Figure 2. Photographs of the most upriver assessment site (RR–001) in the lower Rouge River, upriver from the concrete channel reach and just dowEstate Dam, which is visible in the backdrop of the upriver photograph. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right and left banksnearly vertical, with bare patches and erosional scars, which can be seen between the gaps of overhanging vegetation in the photographs of the left taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig03

Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–002 June

Figure 3. Photographs of assessment site RR–002 in the lower Rouge River, upriver from the concrete channel reach. Photographs were taken facinright and left banks. Similar to the other two sites upriver from the concrete channel reach, the banks at this site are nearly vertical, with bare patchecan be seen among the gaps of overhanging vegetation in the photographs of the left and right bank. Large woody debris extending laterally into the cthe photographs facing upriver and the left bank. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig04

Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–003 June

Figure 4. Photographs of the lowermost assessment site (RR–003) upriver from the concrete channel reach in the lower Rouge River. The Michigan Athe start of the concrete channel is visible in the backdrop of the downriver photograph. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the rig(grape vines) covered much of the foliage along the left bank. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig05 Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–004 June

Figure 5. Photographs of the uppermost assessment site (RR–004) in the concrete channel reach of the lower Rouge River. The Michigan Avenue Brof the concrete channel is visible in the backdrop of the upriver photograph. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right and left was limited to the part of the flood plain above the concrete channel and cracks within the concrete. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geolog
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig06

Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–005 June

Figure 6. Photographs of assessment site RR–005 in the concrete channel reach. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right anFreeway Bridge is visible in the backdrop of the downriver photo. Riparian vegetation was limited to the part of the flood plain above the concrete chaconcrete. A single Salix spp. (willow) growing near the water’s edge on the left bank is visible in the middle of the downriver photograph. Photographs U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig07 Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–006 June

Figure 7. Photographs of assessment site RR–006 in the concrete channel reach. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right anDrive bridge is visible in the background of the downriver photograph. Riparian vegetation was limited to the part of the flood plain above the concrete the concrete. Sparse woody debris can be seen along the banks above the waterline. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig08

Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–007 June

Figure 8. Photographs of assessment site RR–007 in the concrete channel reach. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right anvegetation was limited to the part of the flood plain above the concrete channel and cracks within the concrete. Sparse woody debris can be seen alowaterline. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig09 Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–008 June

Figure 9. Photographs of assessment site RR–008 in the concrete channel reach. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right anInterstate–94 bridge is visible in the background of the downriver photograph. Riparian vegetation was limited to the part of the flood plain above the ccracks within the concrete. Sparse woody debris can be seen along the banks above the waterline. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geologic
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig10

Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–009 June

Figure 10. Photographs of assessment site RR–009 in the concrete channel reach. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right aGreenfield Road bridge is visible in the background of the downriver photo and the Melvindale Civic Arena is in the background of the photo facing the vegetation along the right bank was limited to the part of the flood plain above the concrete channel and cracks within the concrete. However, a dens(reed) was growing along the left bank of the site. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig11 Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–010 June

Figure 11. Photographs of the assessment site RR–010 in the downstream control reach. This is the first site immediately downriver of the part of the concrete channel reach slated for restoration. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the right and left banks. Riparian vegetation alolimited to the part of the flood plain above the concrete channel and cracks within the concrete. However, the distance between the waterline and uppchannel was less than the upriver sites, and trees and other vegetation overhung the channel. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Su
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig12

Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–011 June

Figure 12. Photographs of the assessment site RR–011 in the downstream control reach. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the Schaefer Highway bridge is visible in the background of the downriver photograph. Trees, shrubs, and Phragmites spp.(reed) were growing at the watchannel. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig13 Downriver

Left bank Right bank

Upriver

RR–012 June

Figure 13. Photographs of the assessment site RR–012 in the downstream control reach. Photographs were taken facing upriver, downriver, and the 

A pipeline and railway bridge are visible in the background of the upriver photograph. Trees, shrubs, and Phragmites spp. (reed) were growing at the wthe channel. Photographs taken June 21, 2018, by U.S. Geological Survey.
MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig14

RR–001 June

10 meters 

from right bank

June 21, 2018

20 meters 

from right bank

September 12, 2018

Figure 14. Photographs of the right bank at the upstream end of site RR–001, near the Henry Ford Estate Dam, showing the bank before and after riparemoved to build a fish passage construction over the dam. Photographs taken by U.S. Geological Survey.
Site-specific Depth and Velocity Characteristics 21

Qualitative Habitat Assessment

The sample sites within the upstream control reach had 

a mean total score above 120 (“good”; table 2). In general, 

individual metrics scored within the “good” to “excellent” 

ranges (11–16 and 17–20, respectively), there was little 

evidence of sediment deposition, and riparian vegetation was 

a mixture of mature trees and shrubs that extended into the 

active channel as overhanging vegetation and large woody 

debris. However, pool substrate, channel sinuosity, and bank 

stability scored within the “marginal” range (5–10), and pool 

variability scored within the “poor” range (0–4). Low water 

visibility and water depth prevented substrate from being 

directly visualized, but characterization from a sounding 

rod, submergent vegetation samples, and macroinvertebrate 

samples indicated substrates at these sites were a mixture of 

hardpan clay, silt, and fine gravel < 1 cm). Channel sinuosity at the upstream control reach sites was the greatest across 

reaches, but the stream length of the upstream control reach 

was only 1.17 times longer than the straight-line length. The 

channel within the upstream control reach was incised, and 

banks along the upstream reaches were nearly vertical with 

erosional scars extending above the water surface indicating 

bank erosion has taken place within this reach. Lastly, there 

was no variability in pool types throughout the study area 

with all reaches being classified as run habitat. Specific habitat 

characteristics for each site and sampling date can be found in 

DeBruyne and others (2020).

The concrete channel reach had a total site habitat score 

of 57, which was only 2 points above the “poor” habitat quality cutoff (table 2). Site RR–009 (the most downstream site 

within the concrete channel reach) was the only site with a 

total score above 56 and was classified as “marginal” habitat. The main difference between site RR–009 and the other 

sites within the concrete channel reach was the presence of 

a continuous riparian zone of Phragmites spp. along the left 

bank of site RR–009, whereas the riparian zone in the other 

sites surveyed within the reach was disconnected from the 

water’s edge by a slab of concrete. Concrete was the dominant 

substrate throughout the concrete channel reach, and riparian 

vegetation was limited to small patches of Phragmites spp., 

Salix spp. (willow), and Typha spp. growing between cracks in 

the concrete. Large woody debris was generally absent within 

the active channel but was present individually and as debris 

jams along the banks.

The downstream control reach had a mean qualitative 

habitat score of 86, and all sites within this reach were categorized as “marginal” habitat (table 2). These sites were still 

within the constructed concrete channel, but the water surface 

was near (RR–010) or above (RR–011 and RR–012) the top 

edge of the concrete channel, and riparian vegetation overhung 

the active channel. Large woody debris occupied the active 

channel and extended perpendicularly to the bank. The riparian zone was wider than 23 m but was dominated by Phragmites spp. and neighbored large industrial complexes.

Habitat metrics and score remained similar between the 

June and September surveys, except for the most upstream 

site (RR–001). A large portion of the riparian zone along 

the right bank had been removed from the upstream edge 

of site RR–001 between the two surveys as part of ongoing 

construction of a fish passage over the Henry Ford Estate 

Dam (fig. 14). Because most of the construction efforts were 

upstream from the site, these changes were not reflected in the 

qualitative habitat assessment scores for the site.

Quantitative Vegetation Habitat

Assessment

No submergent macrophytes were collected at any sites. 

Benthic algae and periphyton were collected with the grapnel tows, however, often in quantities too low to obtain an 

accurate wet weight (< 5 grams). Periphyton was observed 

more frequently in June than in September. Periphyton was 

observed in a larger proportion of the samples from the 

concrete channel reach than the other reaches in June but in 

September was present in equal proportions in the upstream 

control and concrete channel reaches, while none was present 

in the downstream control reach (table 4). Benthic algae were 

not observed in the upstream control reach but were collected 

from the concrete channel and downstream control reaches. 

Tow-specific values for each site and sampling date can be 

found in DeBruyne and others (2020).

Site-specific Depth and Velocity

Characteristics

Water depths and velocities were recorded with a total of 

96 acoustic Doppler current profiler measurements (4 replicates at 2 transects within each site) in June and September. In 

June, GPS errors prevented use of only one replicate measure, 

which was at the upstream part of site RR–012. In September, 

GPS and measurement errors (that is, beam separation) were 

more prevalent, and nine replicates across six transects were 

unable to be used in the site summaries. However, all transects 

had at least two replicate measures that meet criteria for inclusion in data summaries.

Mean water depths in the upstream control reach ranged 

from 1.47 to 2.07 m, and standard deviation was < 0.5 m 

(table 5). The banks of the upstream control reach were nearly 

vertical and transitioned to a flat bottom, providing little 

variation in water depth throughout the cross section (fig. 15). 

Compared to the downstream and concrete channel reaches, 

the coefficient of variation in depths was low (nearly half the 

value of sites in the other reaches), indicating less heterogeneity in water depths at the upstream reach. Cross sections 

within the concrete channel reach and downstream control 
22 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

Table 4. Percent of vegetation tow samples where periphyton and benthic algae were observed for 

each site and reach mean by date. Four samples were conducted at each site in June and September.

Date Reach Site

Percent occurrence

Algae Periphyton

June 15, 2018 Upstream control reach RR–001 0 25

RR–002 0 25

RR–003 0 0

Mean 0 25

Concrete channel reach RR–004 0 50

RR–005 0 75

RR–006 0 25

RR–007 25 0

RR–008 75 25

RR–009 25 50

Mean 41.7 45

Downstream control reach RR–010 0 25

RR–011 0 50

RR–012 0 25

Mean 0 33.3

September 14, 2018 Upstream control reach RR–001 0 25

RR–002 0 0

RR–003 0 0

Mean 0 25

Concrete channel reach RR–004 25 0

RR–005 50 0

RR–006 25 0

RR–007 0 0

RR–008 75 0

RR–009 0 25

Mean 43.8 25

Downstream control reach RR–010 50 0

RR–011 25 0

RR–012 0 0

Mean 37.5 0
Qualitative Habitat Assessment 23

Table 5. Summary statistics of water depths and water velocities measured in the lower Rouge River with an acoustic Doppler 

current profiler.

[m, meter; m/s, meter per second; S.D., standard deviation; C.V., coefficient of variation]

Date Reach Site Depth (m) Velocity (m/s)

Mean S.D. C.V. Mean S.D. C.V.

June 15, 2018 Upstream control reach RR–001 1.47 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.04 0.37

RR–002 2.02 0.45 0.22 0.08 0.02 0.27

RR–003 2.07 0.45 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.25

Mean 1.84 0.46 0.25 0.08 0.03 0.39

Concrete control reach RR–004 1.31 0.62 0.47 0.10 0.04 0.41

RR–005 1.49 0.58 0.39 0.07 0.03 0.41

RR–006 1.76 0.85 0.48 0.10 0.03 0.35

RR–007 1.87 0.84 0.45 0.07 0.02 0.29

RR–008 1.85 0.9 0.49 0.05 0.02 0.42

RR–009 1.97 0.8 0.41 0.06 0.02 0.37

Mean 1.75 0.82 0.47 0.07 0.03 0.44

Downstream control 

reach

RR–010 2.12 1.02 0.48 0.06 0.03 0.41

RR–011 2.25 1.05 0.47 0.05 0.02 0.47

RR–012 2.46 1.11 0.45 0.05 0.02 0.39

Mean 2.28 1.07 0.47 0.05 0.02 0.44

September 14, 2018 Upstream control reach RR–001 1.54 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.21

RR–002 2.04 0.36 0.18 0.07 0.01 0.18

RR–003 1.88 0.49 0.26 0.07 0.02 0.29

Mean 1.85 0.43 0.23 0.07 0.02 0.26

Concrete control reach RR–004 1.29 0.46 0.36 0.11 0.03 0.27

RR–005 1.33 0.52 0.39 0.10 0.004 0.35

RR–006 1.80 0.75 0.42 0.08 0.02 0.28

RR–007 1.80 0.68 0.38 0.04 0.02 0.49

RR–008 1.77 0.81 0.46 0.11 0.03 0.28

RR–009 2.01 0.94 0.47 0.05 0.02 0.40

Mean 1.72 0.78 0.46 0.08 0.04 0.47

Downstream control 

reach

RR–010 2.12 0.94 0.44 0.04 0.01 0.38

RR–011 2.22 1.03 0.46 0.06 0.03 0.47

RR–012 2.32 1.02 0.44 0.05 0.02 0.40

Mean 2.22 1.00 0.45 0.05 0.02 0.45
24 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig15

Water velocity magnitude, in meters per second

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

EXPLANATION

0.04

0.06

0.06

0.08

0.08

Distance from the left bank, in meters 

(vertical exaggeration ×2)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

1

2

3

4

Downstream control reach

0.06 0.08 0.1 0.08 0.06

0.12

0.14

0.12

0.1

0 10 20

Concrete channel reach

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.08

0 10 20

Upstream control reach

0

1

2

3

Depth, in meters

Figure 15. Water velocity at channel cross sections measured with an acoustic Doppler current profiler on June 15, 2018, 

representative of sites in the upstream control reach (RR–002), concrete channel reach (RR–004), and downstream control reach 

(RR–012).
Site-specific Water Quality Characteristics 25

reaches had a V-shape created by the concrete slabs used to 

construct the channel (fig. 15). Mean water depth and standard 

deviation of depths increased with distance downriver, with 

the most upstream site within these reaches (RR–004) having a mean depth of 1.31 m in June and 1.29 m in September 

(table 5). Mean water depths at the most downstream site 

(RR–012) were 2.46 m and 2.32 m during the June and September surveys, respectively. 

In general, depth-averaged water velocities were low 

among all reaches during the June and September surveys, with the mean water velocities ranging from 0.04 to 

0.11 meter per second (table 5). During the June survey, water 

velocities in the upstream control reach were more variable, 

and the mean coefficient of variation (0.39) was closer to the 

mean coefficient of variations for the concrete channel (0.44) 

and downstream control reaches (0.44). Depth-averaged water 

velocities were less variable in the upstream control reach than 

in the other reaches based on the lower coefficient of variation in the upstream control reach compared to the concrete 

channel and downstream control reaches during the September 

surveys. Full water column profile data by site and sampling 

date can be found in DeBruyne and others (2020).

Site-specific Water Quality 

Characteristics

Water temperatures were similar across the reaches, 

although during October, the water temperatures in the 

upstream control and concrete channel reaches became 

increasingly colder than in the downstream control reach 

(fig. 16). Mean Secchi depths in the upstream control and 

concrete channel reaches were 0.4 m and 0.5 m, respectively, 

in June and September and higher in the downstream control reach where mean Secchi depth was 1.0 m and 0.6 m in 

June and September, respectively (table 6). Mean dissolved 

oxygen ranged from 5.6 to 7.5 milligrams per liter during the 

June sampling period and from 6.5 to 8.0 milligrams per liter 

during the September sampling period, with lower levels at 

downstream sites. Mean conductivity ranged from 1,001 to 

2,210 microsiemens per centimeter during the June sampling 

period and from 918 to 1,969 microsiemens per centimeter 

during the September sampling period. Conductivity was 

lowest in the downstream control reach, particularly at sites 

RR–011 and RR–012 (table 6). During the June sampling 

period, mean pH ranged from 7.3 (site RR–010) to 8.0 (site 

RR–012). During the September sampling period, mean pH 

was higher, ranging from 7.9 to 8.1; only site RR–001 had 

a mean pH below 8. Detailed water quality values for each 

site and sampling date can be found in DeBruyne and others 

(2020).

EXPLANATION

Upstream control reach

Concrete channel reach

Downstream control reach

Month

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

25

20

15

10

5

June July August September October November December

Figure 16. Mean hourly water temperatures in the upstream control, concrete channel, and downstream 

control reaches of the lower Rouge River from June 4, 2018, to December 10, 2018.
26 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

Table 6. Water quality parameters recorded during fish and macroinvertebrate sampling in the lower Rouge River. Mean 

values are reported by site. 

[m, meter; D.O., dissolved oxygen; mg/L, milligram per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; --, no data]

Date Reach Site Secchi depth 

(m)

D.O. 

(mg/L)

Conductivity 

(μS/cm) pH

June Upstream control reach RR–001 0.4 6.8 1,561 7.8

RR–002 -- 6.5 2,210 7.8

RR–003 -- 6.3 2,109 7.8

Mean 0.4 6.5 1,960 7.8

Concrete control reach RR–004 -- 6.2 1,454 7.8

RR–005 -- 6.8 1,460 7.7

RR–006 0.5 6.9 1,438 7.6

RR–007 0.7 7.1 2,156 7.6

RR–008 0.5 7.2 1,947 7.7

RR–009 0.4 7.5 1,520 7.6

Mean 0.5 6.9 1,675 7.7

Downstream control 

reach

RR–010 0.6 5.6 1,386 7.3

RR–011 0.9 6.1 1,001 7.5

RR–012 1.2 6.0 1,002 8.0

Mean 1.0 5.9 1,130 7.6

September Upstream control reach RR–001 0.4 8.0 1,683 7.9

RR–002 0.4 7.7 1,147 8.0

RR–003 0.5 8.0 1,969 8.0

Mean 0.4 7.9 1,555 8.0

Concrete control reach RR–004 0.4 7.6 1,582 8.0

RR–005 0.4 7.2 1,966 8.0

RR–006 0.5 6.8 1,550 8.0

RR–007 0.5 7.7 1,916 8.0

RR–008 0.5 7.1 1,120 8.1

RR–009 0.6 7.0 1,190 8.1

Mean 0.5 7.2 1,554 8.1

Downstream control 

reach

RR–010 0.6 6.9 1,120 8.2

RR–011 0.5 6.5 1,075 8.1

RR–012 0.6 6.7 918 8.1

Mean 0.6 6.7 1,038 8.1
Qualitative Macroinvertebrate Assessment 27

Herpetofauna Assessment

A total of 8 species of herpetofauna was observed during 

the surveys: 1 amphibian species, 3 snake species, and 4 turtle 

species. June surveys resulted in observations of 1 amphibian 

species and 4 reptile species: Anaxyrus americanus (eastern 

American toad), Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis (eastern garter 

snake), Storeria dekayi (Dekay’s brown snake), Graptemys 

geographica (northern map turtle), and Apalone spinifera 

spinifera (eastern spiny softshell turtle; table 7). Although no 

amphibians were observed during September surveys, seven 

reptile species were recorded: eastern garter snake, DeKay’s 

brown snake, Thamnophis butleri (Butler’s garter snake), 

northern map turtle, eastern spiny softshell turtle, Chrysemys 

picta (painted turtle), and Trachemys scripta elegans (redeared slider). Butler’s garter snake is listed as a species of 

special concern and a species of greatest conservation need 

within the State of Michigan. Furthermore, three observations of 2 turtles and 1 snake were not able to be identified 

to species in the field. One of the unidentified turtles and the 

unidentified snake were seen during the June surveys at sites 

RR–001 and RR–007, respectively. The other unidentified 

turtle was observed at RR–002 in September. Northern map 

turtles composed the majority of herpetofauna observed in 

June (43 individuals, 80 percent of herpetofauna) and September (40 individuals, 70 percent of herpetofauna), with most 

of the observations of northern map turtles taking place in the 

upstream control reach (58 percent in June and 73 percent in 

September) where large woody debris and other basking structures exist in greater densities compared to other reaches. All 

species occurrences and locations can be found in DeBruyne 

and others (2020).

Qualitative Macroinvertebrate 

Assessment

Qualitative macroinvertebrate sampling yielded a total 

of 6,073 macroinvertebrates representing 19 taxa (excluding 

one individual from the order Zygoptera that was unable to be 

identified to family; tables 8–10). Mean taxa richness ranged 

from 3.3–6.7 taxa in June and 2.7–4 taxa in September. Samples were dominated by Oligochaeta and Chironomidae at all 

sites during both months, and no other taxa exceeded 5 percent 

of the total catch. Individual metric scores were equal across 

sample sites, and the total IBI score was −5 for all sites and 

reaches (table 11). Following the interpretation of the MDEQ 

SWAS (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2008) protocol, IBI scores of −5 indicated macroinvertebrate 

assemblages were “poor” for the region. Detailed macroinvertebrate densities for each site and sampling date can be found 

in DeBruyne and others (2020).

Hester-Dendy colonization samplers collected a total of 

20,153 macroinvertebrates and 16 taxa (excluding 3 individuals belonging to the phylum Mollusca, 3 individuals belonging 

to the class Gastropoda, and 3 individuals belonging to the 

order Trichoptera that could not be identified to lower taxonomic levels). Mean taxa richness ranged from 3.7–5.3 taxa 

in June and 2.3–8 taxa in September. Mean taxa richness was 

highest in the upstream control reach in September (8 taxa) 

and lowest in the downstream control reach in September 

(2.3 taxa). Except for the upstream control reach, mean taxa 

richness was higher in June than in September (tables 12–13). 

Similar to the qualitative samples, Chironomidae and Oligochaeta were the dominant taxa (figs. 17–18). Oligochaeta 

were observed in greater densities and proportions in the 

downstream control reach in June and September than in the 

concrete channel and upstream control reaches. Chironomidae 

were observed in higher mean densities than Oligochaeta in 

the upstream control and concrete channel reaches in June, but 

not in September, although mean September densities of Chironomidae (1,231 individuals/square meter) were only marginally higher than mean Oligochaeta densities (1,129 individuals/square meter) in the upstream control reach. Isopoda and 

Amphipoda were the only other taxa that composed more than 

5 percent of the taxa assemblage (with Isopoda composing 

more than 30 percent of some samples) and were observed in 

71 and 33 percent of the samples, respectively. Both taxa were 

observed in greater densities in June, and neither taxon composed more than 5 percent of a sample in September. Isopoda 

were the dominant taxon belonging to the isopod, snail, and 

leech taxonomic group, and isopod, snail, and leech densities 

and proportional abundances mirrored those of Isopoda. No 

stoneflies, few mayflies (45 individuals), and few caddisflies 

(27 individuals) were collected. Mayflies and caddisflies composed 0.4 percent of the total number of macroinvertebrates 

observed and were only observed in the upstream control and 

concrete channel reaches. Lastly, no surface-dependent taxa 

were observed in any of the Hester-Dendy samples.
Table 7. Counts of herpetofauna observed along the lower Rouge River during June and September 2018 surveys. [Undefined sites were locations of observed individuals between the defined sites in each reach.] Upstream control Concrete channel Downs

Scientific name (common name)

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Undefined

Total

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Undefined

Total

RR–010

RR–011

June 2018

Anaxyrus americanus americanus 

(eastern American toad) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis (eastern garter snake) 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 

Thamnophis butleri (Butler’s garter snake) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Storeria dekayi (DeKay’s brown snake) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Graptemys geographica (Northern map turtle) 15 5 0 5 25 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 10 0 0 

Apalone spinifera spinifera

(eastern spiny softshell turtle) 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Chrysemys picta (painted turtle) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Trachemys scripta elegans (red-eared slider) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unknown turtle 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unknown snake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

September 2018

Anaxyrus americanus americanus

(eastern American toad) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis

(eastern garter snake) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Thamnophis butleri (Butler’s garter snake) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 

Storeria dekayi (DeKay’s brown snake) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Graptemys geographica (Northern map turtle) 4 6 0 19 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 

Apalone spinifera spinifera

(eastern spiny softshell turtle) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Chrysemys picta (painted turtle) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Trachemys scripta elegans (red-eared slider) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unknown turtle 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unknown snake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table 8. Grouping and taxonomic classification of macroinvertebrates collected from the lower Rouge River in June and September 2018.[Taxa is the lowest taxonomic level identified; group was defined by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (2008) surface water assessment protocol. Insects were family level when possible, and noninsects went to lowest taxonomic level possible. --, no data; ISL, isopoda, snails, and leeches; *, only adults collected]

Taxa Group Common name Phylum Class Subclass Order Sub

Amphipoda Amphipoda Scuds Arthropoda Malacostraca Eumalacostraca Amphipoda 

Ancylidae ISL Limpet Mollusca Gastropoda -- Basommatophora 

Baetidae Mayflies Small minnow mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Piscifo

Ceratopogonidae Other Sandflies Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Diptera Nemat

Chironomidae Chironomidae Nonbiting midges Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Diptera Nemat

Coenagrionidae Other Narrow-winged damselflies Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Odonata Zygop

Corixidae Surface dependent Water boatmen Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Hemiptera Hetero

Culicidae Surface dependent Mosquito Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Diptera Nemat

Decapoda Other Decapoda Arthropoda Malacostraca Eumalacostraca Decapoda 

Elmidae Other Riffle beetles Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Coleoptera Polyph

Gastropoda ISL Gastropods Mollusca Gastropoda -- -- 

Haliplidae* Surface dependent Crawling water beetles Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Coleoptera Adeph

Heptageniidae Mayflies Flat-headed mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Ephemeroptera Schisto

Hirudinea ISL Leeches Annelida Clitellata Hirudinea -- 

Hydridae Other Hydra Cnidaria Hydrozoa Hydroidolina Anthoathecata Aplanu

Hydropsychidae Caddisflies Net-spinning caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera Annuli

Isopoda ISL/Isopoda Isopoda Arthropoda Malacostraca Eumalacostraca Isopoda 

Libellulidae Other Skimmers or perchers Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Odonata Anisop

Lymnaeidae ISL Pond snails Mollusca Gastropoda -- Basommatophora 

Mollusca Other Molluscs Mollusca -- -- -- 

Nematomorph Other Nematomorpha Nematomorpha -- -- -- 

Oligochaeta Oligochaeta Oligochaeta Annelida Clitellata Oligochaeta -- 

Physidae ISL Bladder snails Mollusca Gastropoda -- Basommatophora 

Planorbidae ISL Ramshorn snails Mollusca Gastropoda -- Basommatophora 

Sphaeriidae Other Pea clams Mollusca Bivalvia Heterodonta Veneroida Sphaer

Trichoptera Caddisflies Caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Trichoptera 

Turbellaria Other Flatworms Platyhelminthes Turbellaria -- -- 

Zygoptera Other Damselflies Arthropoda Insecta Pterygota Odonata Zygop
Table 9. Individuals and taxa richness of macroinvertebrates collected from the lower Rouge River during qualitative sampling in June 2018. Taxa Upstream control Concrete channel Down

RR–001 RR–002 RR–003 Reach mean RR–004 RR–005 RR–006 RR–007 RR–008 RR–009 Reach mean RR–010 RR–0

Amphipoda 1 1 1 1 5 3 0 0 1 4 2 0 6 

Ancylidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Baetidae 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ceratopogonidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Chironomidae 237 240 181 219 155 272 284 294 326 237 286 187 145 

Coenagrionidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Corixidae 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Culicidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Decapoda 0 2 1 1 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Haliplidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hirudinea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Isopoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Libellulidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lymnaeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Oligochaeta 48 44 99 64 123 20 1 40 2 38 27 88 102 

Physidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Planorbidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sphaeriidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Turbellaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Zygoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total count 287 289 282 286 291 297 286 334 329 279 314 277 257 

Taxa richness 4 6 4 5 5 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 7 
Table 10. Individuals and taxa richness of macroinvertebrates collected from the lower Rouge River during qualitative sampling in September 2018

Taxa

Upstream control Concrete channel Do

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Amphipoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ancylidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Baetidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 

Ceratopogonidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Chironomidae 35 19 9 21 257 108 38 126 49 181 119 62 

Coenagrionidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 

Corixidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Culicidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Decapoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Haliplidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Hirudinea 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Isopoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Libellulidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Lymnaeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Oligochaeta 186 235 196 206 16 41 157 147 142 84 124 93 

Physidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Planorbidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Sphaeriidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Turbellaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 

Zygoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total count 221 255 207 228 273 149 196 274 192 274 247 155 

Taxa richness 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 8 5 2 
32 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

Table 11. Index of biological integrity scores from qualitative macroinvertebrate sampling in the lower Rouge River in June 

and September 2018. Values for individual taxa groups were from guidelines located in Michigan Department of Environmental

 Quality (2008).

[IBI, index of biological integrity]

Month Reach Site

Total taxa

Mayfly

Caddisfly

Stonefly

Percent mayfly

Percent caddisfly

Percent 

dominant taxa

Percent isopod, 

snail, leeches

Percent surface 

dependent

IBI score

June Upstream control reach RR–001 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–002 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–003 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Mean −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Concrete control reach RR–004 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–005 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–006 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–007 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–008 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–009 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Mean −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Downstream control 

reach

RR–010 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–011 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–012 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Mean −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

September Upstream control reach RR–001 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–002 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–003 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Mean −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Concrete control reach RR–004 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–005 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–006 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–007 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–008 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–009 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Mean −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Downstream control 

reach

RR–010 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–011 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

RR–012 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5

Mean −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −5
Table 12. Taxa total densities (in individuals per square meter) and richness of macroinvertebrates on Hester-Dendy colonization samplers in the low

June 2018.

Taxa

Upstream control Concrete channel Do

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Amphipoda 44 100 113 85 0 19 75 0 0 13 18 0 

Baetidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Chironomidae 838 1,038 1,513 1,129 2,319 1,194 1,244 1,144 356 1,300 1,259 525 

Coenagrionidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Decapoda 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 6 0 6 2 0 

Elmidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Gastropoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 

Heptageniidae 6 6 6 6 6 19 0 0 0 6 5 0 

Hirudinea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hydra 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Hydropsychidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Isopoda 188 269 206 221 56 669 319 6 6 100 193 0 

Mollusca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nematomorph 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 13 

Oligochaeta 0 156 75 77 25 31 113 94 138 144 91 381 

Planorbidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Trichoptera 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Turbellaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total density 1,081 1,569 1,919 1,523 2,413 1,938 1,750 1,250 506 1,575 1,572 919 1

Taxa richness 5 5 6 5 4 5 4 4 4 7 5 3 
Table 13. Taxa total densities (individuals per square meter) and richness of macroinvertebrates on Hester-Dendy colonization samplers in the lowe

September 2018. Taxa Upstream control Concrete channel Do

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Amphipoda 0 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Baetidae 6 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Chironomidae 1,188 600 1,906 1,231 1,181 1,156 56 56 163 169 464 25 

Coenagrionidae 38 0 6 15 6 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 

Decapoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Elmidae 6 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gastropoda 25 0 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Heptageniidae 0 6 0 2 6 13 0 0 0 0 3 0 

Hirudinea 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hydra 0 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hydropsychidae 13 0 25 13 0 6 0 0 6 0 2 0 

Isopoda 19 6 38 21 6 6 0 0 25 0 6 6 

Mollusca 0 0 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nematomorph 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Oligochaeta 381 1,906 1,100 1,129 56 1,163 819 619 481 2,869 1,001 3,413 2,

Planorbidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Trichoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Turbellaria 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total density 1,694 2,525 3,125 2,448 1,263 2,350 875 675 681 3,038 1,480 3,444 2,

Taxa richness 10 5 9 8 6 4 2 2 5 2 4 3 
Qualitative Macroinvertebrate Assessment 35

18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99

18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig17

Species group

Amphipoda

Caddisfly

Chironomidae

Isopoda

Mayfly

Oligochaeta

Stonefly

ISL

Surface dependent

Other taxa

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Density, in individuals per square meter

September

June

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig17

EXPLANATION

[ISL: isopoda, snails, leeches]

Upstream control reach

Concrete channel reach

Reach mean

9 18 9 Sample size

Replicate

Downstream control reach

Figure 17. Mean macroinvertebrate densities by reach and month collected with Hester-Dendy samplers. Taxonomic groups are 

summarized in table 3 and are expanded from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey 

Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers protocol to also include taxa that composed more than 5 percent of the assemblage.
36 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

MAD19 1913 IP05540 Roseman fig18

20

40

60

80

100

0

Species group

Amphipoda

Caddisfly

Chironomidae

Isopoda

Mayfly

Oligochaeta

Stonefly

ISL

Surface dependent

Other taxa

September

18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99

0

20

40

60

80

100

June

Percent of total catch

18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99 18 99

EXPLANATION

[ISL: isopoda, snails, leeches]

Upstream control reach

Concrete channel reach

Reach mean

9 18 9 Sample size

Replicate

Downstream control reach

Catch limit

Figure 18. Mean percentage of the total Hester-Dendy catch composed by each taxonomic group. Taxonomic groups are summarized 

in table 3 and are expanded from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols 

for Wadable Streams and Rivers protocol to also include taxa that composed more than 5 percent of the assemblage.
Fisheries Electrofishing Assessment 37

Fisheries Electrofishing Assessment

A total of 1,068 fish (24 species) were collected with 

boat electrofishing. Mean species richness by reach ranged 

from 5–8 in June and 5–9 in September (tables 14–15). The 

mean CPUE of four functional feeding groups was highest for 

insectivores in the three reaches in June but varied in September, when the “other” feeding group had the highest CPUE in 

the concrete channel reach (fig. 19). The mean proportional 

abundance of insectivores was greatest in the concrete channel 

reach (76 percent of the catch), followed by the downstream 

control reach (69 percent of the catch) and the upstream control reach (65 percent of the catch; fig. 20). Notropis atherinoides (emerald shiner) was the dominant species (56 percent 

of the mean catch) collected in June and composed the bulk of 

the insectivorous fishes collected (table 14). Emerald shiner 

also had the highest CPUE of insectivorous fish collected in 

September, but high CPUE of Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) also was observed (table 15). Gizzard shad drove 

patterns in CPUE of fishes belonging to the “other” feeding 

guild, and September catches of gizzard shad were composed 

primarily of juvenile (fig. 21; < 305 mm; Trautman, 1981) 

individuals. Of the three tolerance groups summarized, the 

tolerance group “other” had the highest CPUE and composed 

most of the catch among the three reaches in June and September, heavily affected by catches of emerald shiner and gizzard 

shad. The mean CPUE of tolerant fishes was comparatively 

low against the other tolerance types; however, tolerant 

fishes were observed in a higher proportion of the catch from 

the upstream control reach (June: 22 percent; September: 

14 percent) than in the concrete channel reach (June: 6 percent; September: 2 percent) and downstream control reach 

(June: 5 percent; September: 7 percent; fig. 19). Intolerant 

fishes were infrequently observed; however, fishes belonging to this group, primarily juvenile Micropterus dolomieu

(smallmouth bass; < 254 mm; Trautman, 1981), composed a 

mean of 29 percent of the fish collected from the downstream 

control reach in September (figs. 20, 22). Catostomus commersonii (white sucker) was the primary lithophilic spawning fish observed with boat electrofishing, although a single 

Sander vitreus (juvenile walleye, < 280 mm; Trautman, 1981) 

was collected from the downstream control reach in September. Three nonnative fishes Cyprinus carpio (common carp), 

Carassius auratus (goldfish), and Morone americana (white 

perch) were observed with boat electrofishing. Mean CPUE 

of nonnative fishes was higher in June (24 individuals per 

hour [individuals/h], 6 individuals/h, and 12 individuals/h 

in the upstream control, concrete channel, and downstream 

control reaches, respectively), and nonnative fishes were only 

observed in the downstream control reach in September (mean 

CPUE of 12 individuals/h). No rare, threatened, or endangered species were collected with boat electrofishing. Detailed 

fish captures at each site and sampling date can be found in 

DeBruyne and others (2020).
Table 14. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per hour and species richness of fish collected with boat electrofishing from the lower R

June 2018. [--, no data] Scientific name (common name) Upstream control Concrete channel D

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque (bluegill) 48 0 0 16 12 0 36 36 24 24 22 0 

Pimephales notatus (bluntnose minnow) 0 0 0 0 36 48 12 12 12 0 20 0 

Amia calva Linnaeus (bowfin) 0 11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Labidesthes sicculus (Brook silverside) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus (common carp) 12 0 48 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque 

(emerald shiner)

311 134 36 160 336 768 358 249 672 372 459 144 

Pimephales promelas Rafinesque 

(fathead minnow)

0 0 0 -- 96 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 

Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque 

(freshwater drum)

12 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) 12 22 0 11 24 24 95 107 60 72 64 24 

Carassius auratus (goldfish) 0 0 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Notemigonus crysoleucas (golden shiner) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque (green sunfish) 12 0 0 4 0 0 12 0 0 0 2 0 

Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass) 36 0 12 16 12 12 24 0 0 0 8 12 

Esox lucius Linnaeus (northern pike) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 

Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed) 24 11 36 24 12 12 0 0 12 60 16 12 

Ambloplites rupestris Rafinesque (rock bass) 24 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cyprinella spiloptera (spotfin shiner) 12 11 24 16 0 0 12 24 0 60 16 12 

Micropterus dolomieu Lacepède 

(smallmouth bass)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sander vitreus (walleye) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Morone chrysops (white bass) 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 

Morone americana (white perch) 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 
Table 14. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per hour and species richness of fish collected with boat electrofishing from the lowe

June 2018.—Continued

[--, no data]

Scientific name (common name)

Upstream control Concrete channel D

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Catostomus commersonii (white sucker) 0 22 24 15 24 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 

Ameiurus natalis (yellow bullhead) 12 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Perca flavescens (yellow perch) 0 34 0 11 144 36 0 0 12 12 34 12 

Total catch 514 246 192 318 768 900 548 428 792 600 673 228 

Species richness 11 7 7 8 11 6 7 5 6 6 7 7 
Table 15. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per hour and species richness of fish collected with boat electrofishing from the lowe

September 2018. [--, no data] Scientific name (common name) Upstream control Concrete channel D

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque (bluegill) 0 12 0 4 0 0 24 0 0 0 4 0 

Pimephales notatus (bluntnose minnow) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 10 24 

Amia calva Linnaeus (bowfin) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Labidesthes sicculus (Brook silverside) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus (common carp) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque 

(emerald shiner)

180 168 24 124 60 60 168 72 108 372 140 72 

Pimephales promelas Rafinesque 

(fathead minnow)

0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 12 0 0 -- 0 

Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque 

(freshwater drum)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) 12 264 0 92 588 1,297 948 432 168 264 616 156 

Carassius auratus (goldfish) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Notemigonus crysoleucas (golden shiner) 0 24 0 8 0 0 0 12 0 0 2 0 

Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque (green sunfish) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass) 12 12 0 8 36 12 12 12 0 24 16 36 

Esox lucius Linnaeus (northern pike) 12 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 12 0 6 36 

Ambloplites rupestris Rafinesque (rock bass) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cyprinella spiloptera (spotfin shiner) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 4 0 

Micropterus dolomieu Lacepède 

(smallmouth bass)

12 0 0 4 0 0 0 12 0 48 10 120 

Sander vitreus (walleye) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Morone chrysops (white bass) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 
Table 15. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per hour and species richness of fish collected with boat electrofishing from the lowe

September 2018.—Continued

[--, no data]

Scientific name (common name)

Upstream control Concrete channel D

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Morone americana (white perch) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Catostomus commersonii (white sucker) 24 12 12 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ameiurus natalis (yellow bullhead) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Perca flavescens (yellow perch) 0 24 0 8 0 0 12 0 0 0 2 24 

Total catch 252 528 48 276 684 1,369 1,164 636 288 732 812 480 

Species richness 6 8 3 6 3 3 5 8 3 5 5 8 
42 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig19

EXPLANATION

[RTE: Rare, threatened, endangered]

Reach mean

3 6 3 Sample size

Upstream control reach Replicate

Concrete channel reach

Downstream control reach

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Non-native

RTE

Lithophilic spawner

Species richness

Total catch

0

500

1,000

1,500

Miscellaneous group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

0

500

1,000

1,500

Miscellaneous groups—June

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Species group

Intolerant

Tolerant

Other

0

500

1,000

1,500

Tolerance group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

0

500

1,000

1,500

Tolerance group—June

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Insectivore

Omnivore

Piscivore

Other

0

500

1,000

1,500

Feeding group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

0

500

1,000

1,500

Feeding group—June

Catch-per-unit-effort, in fish per hour

Figure 19. Mean catch per unit effort of fish collected with boat electrofishing upstream, downstream, and within the Rouge River 

concrete channel slated for restoration. Species are aggregated into feeding, tolerance, and other (for example, nonnative, lithophilic 

spawning, and rare, threatened, or endangered species) groups identified by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

surface water assessment protocol (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008).
Fisheries Electrofishing Assessment 43

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig20

Catch limit

3 6 3 Sample size Reach mean

Upstream control reach Replicate

Concrete channel reach

Downstream control reach

[RTE: Rare, threatened, endangered]

EXPLANATION

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Non-native

RTE

Lithophilic spawner

0

40

80

20

60

100

Miscellaneous group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

0

40

80

20

60

100

Miscellaneous groups—June

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Species group

Intolerant

Tolerant

 Other

0

40

80

20

60

100

Tolerance group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 100

0

40

80

20

60

Tolerance group—June

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Insectivore

Omnivore

Piscivore

Other

0

40

80

20

60

100

Feeding group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

0

40

80

20

60

100

Feeding group—June

Percent of total catch

Figure 20. Mean percentage of the total boat electrofishing catch composed by feeding, tolerance, and other (for example, nonnative, 

lithophilic spawning, and rare, threatened, or endangered species) groups, identified by the Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality surface water assessment protocol, upstream, downstream, and within the lower Rouge River concrete channel (Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 2008).
44 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig21

0

10

20

30

40

50

100200300400

Count

Length, in millimeters

EXPLANATION

June

September

Figure 21. Length-frequency histogram of Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) collected with boat electrofishing during June and 

September fish collections in the lower Rouge River. Bar height represents the total number of individuals within a length bin collected 

during sampling events.
Fisheries Minnow Trap Assessment 45

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig22

Length, in millimeters

Count

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

50

100

150200250

Bluegill

500

550600650

Northern pike

50

100

150

200

Pumpkinseed sunfish

50

100150200

Yellow perch

50

100

150200250300

Smallmouth bass

June

September

EXPLANATION

50

100150200

250300350

400

Largemouth bass

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 22. Length-frequency histograms of game fish collected with boat electrofishing and minnow traps during June and 

September fish collections in the lower Rouge River. Bar height represents the total number of individuals within a length bin 

collected during sampling events.

Fisheries Minnow Trap Assessment

A total of 69 fish (6 species) and 5 crayfish (Order Decapoda) were collected with minnow traps. Mean species richness 

ranged from 0 to 0.8 in June and from 1 to 1.8 in September 

(fig. 23). Two fish species, Neogobius melanostomus (round 

goby) and Notropis hudsonius (spottail shiner), were unique 

to the minnow trap collections, and the other four fishes: 

(Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill sunfish), Lepomis gibbosus

(pumpkinseed sunfish), Perca flavescens (yellow perch), and 

Pimephales notatus (bluntnose minnow) also were observed 

in boat electrofishing collections (tables 16–17). Only three 

fish were collected with minnow traps in June; the other 

66 fish observed in minnow traps were collected in September. 

The insectivore feeding group and the tolerance group “other” 

were the dominant functional groups collected from all three 

reaches in September (figs. 23–24; table 17). A single spottail 

shiner collected from the downstream control reach was the 

only intolerant species collected with minnow traps in September. Round goby was the only nonnative species observed with 

minnow traps and composed a mean of 92 percent, 86 percent, 

and 56 percent of the September catch from the upstream 

control, concrete channel, and downstream control reaches, 

respectively. No lithophilic spawning or rare, threatened, or 

endangered species were observed with minnow traps.
46 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig23

EXPLANATION

Reach mean

3 6 3 Sample size

Upstream control reach Replicate

Concrete channel reach

Downstream control reach

[RTE: Rare, threatened, endangered]

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Non-native

RTE

Lithophilic spawner

Species richness

Total catch

Miscellaneous group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Miscellaneous groups—June

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Species group

Intolerant

Tolerant

Other

Tolerance group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Tolerance group—June

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Insectivore

Omnivore

Piscivore

Other

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Feeding group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Catch-per-unit-effort, in fish per 12 hours

Feeding group—June

Figure 23. Mean catch per unit effort of fish collected with minnow traps upstream, downstream, and within the Rouge River 

concrete channel. Species are aggregated into feeding, tolerance, and other (for example, nonnative lithophilic spawning and 

rare, threatened, or endangered species) groups identified by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality surface water 

assessment protocol (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008). Species richness and total catch also are shown.
Table 16. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per 12 hours, and species richness of fish collected in minnow traps from the lower Ro

Scientific name (common name)

Upstream control Concrete channel D

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque (bluegill) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pimephales notatus (bluntnose minnow) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 

Crayfish (Order Decapoda) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 

Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Neogobius melanostomus (round goby) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Notropis hudsonius (spottail shiner) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Perca flavescens (yellow perch) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total catch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.0 

Species richness 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 
Table 17. Catch per unit effort standardized as number of fish per 12 hours and species richness of fish collected in minnow traps from the lower Roug

Scientific name (common name) Upstream control Concrete channel D

RR–001

RR–002

RR–003

Reach mean

RR–004

RR–005

RR–006

RR–007

RR–008

RR–009

Reach mean

RR–010

Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque (bluegill) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 

Pimephales notatus (bluntnose minnow) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Crayfish (Order Decapoda) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 

Neogobius melanostomus (round goby) 0.0 1.5 2.5 1.3 3.6 0.5 2.6 2.6 2.1 0.6 2.0 2.6 

Notropis hudsonius (spottail shiner) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Perca flavescens (yellow perch) 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 

Total catch 0.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 5.1 0.5 3.1 4.1 2.1 0.6 2.6 2.6 

Species richness 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.0 
Fisheries Minnow Trap Assessment 49

MAD19 1913 IP105540 Roseman fig24

EXPLANATION

[RTE: Rare, threatened, endangered]

Catch limit

3 9 3 Sample size Reach mean

Upstream control reach Replicate

Concrete channel reach

Downstream control reach

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Non-native

RTE

Lithophilic spawner

Miscellaneous group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Miscellaneous groups—June

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Species group

Intolerant

Tolerant

 Other

Tolerance group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Tolerance group—June

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

Insectivore

Omnivore

Piscivore

Other

0

40

80

20

60

100

Feeding group—September

3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3

0

40

80

20

60

100

Feeding group—June

Percent of total catch

Figure 24. Mean percentage of the total minnow trap catch composed by feeding, tolerance, and other (for example, nonnative, 

lithophilic spawning, and rare, threatened, or endangered species) groups, identified by the Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality surface water assessment protocol (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008), from the upstream control, 

concrete channel, and downstream control reaches.
50 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

Discussion

Our 2018 study of the lower Rouge River concrete 

channel aquatic community and habitat supplements historic 

surveys and provides a contemporary assessment of ecosystem 

conditions to be used to assess effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts. Based on the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadeable Streams and Rivers for glide/pool streams 

(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008), the 

Rouge River concrete channel habitat is considered “marginal” to “poor” compared to some upper reaches of the river 

and to other riverine systems in Michigan. Similar to earlier 

studies (Manny and others, 1988; Beam and Braunscheidel, 

1998; Price, 2014), conditions in the concrete channel remain 

classified as poor from degraded water quality, low dissolved 

oxygen, and low habitat heterogeneity due to the monotonous 

physical environment and lack of aquatic vegetation. These 

factors limit aquatic organism production at all trophic levels.

Surveys of aquatic organisms in the lower Rouge River 

showed results similar to earlier investigations reported by 

Beam and Braunscheidel (1998). Observations of amphibians and reptiles during 2018 showed similar species and 

higher abundances in upper reaches of the river than in the 

concrete channel area. Quantitative and qualitative assessment 

of aquatic macroinvertebrates during 2018 were consistent 

with those reported by Beam and Braunscheidel (1998) with 

the lower river concrete channel dominated by oligochaetes 

and chironomids, taxa indicative of degraded habitats and 

poor water quality (Carter and others, 2017). Fish community 

composition and catch per unit effort were similar to previous 

surveys with low fish diversity, few game/sport fishes, and 

low numbers of those that were collected. The fish community 

remained dominated by forage species such as shiners,

Pimephales promelas (fathead minnows), and Dorosoma 

cepedianum (gizzard shad). 

The purpose of completing a biological and habitat 

assessment of the lower Rouge River was to provide a suite 

of preremediation conditions that can be used to compare 

and evaluate changes in the project area post remediation. In 

addition, information from this report can be used to assess the 

progress toward mitigating and redesignating the beneficial 

use impairment related to losses of fish and wildlife habitat in 

the Rouge River. Since our 2018 study, a fish passageway was 

constructed at the Henry Ford Estate Dam to allow migrating fish access to the upper reaches of the river (Alliance of 

Rouge Communities, 2019) and oxbow side channel habitats 

have been reconnected to the main channel (Environmental 

Consulting & Technology, 2015; Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative, 2019). The passageway and oxbow projects are 

expected to positively impact 80 kilometers of main river and 

160 kilometers of connected tributary waters for fish migration 

by increasing aquatic diversity throughout the Rouge River for 

fish species, macroinvertebrates, mussels, and other aquatic 

life. In addition to the planned remediation of portions of the 

concrete channel area that was the focus of our 2018 study, 

these restoration projects are part of the management actions 

intended to remove Rouge River Area of Concern Beneficial 

Use Impairments related to Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat, 

Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations, and Degradation of Benthos.

References Cited

Alliance of Rouge Communities, 2019, Restoring fish passage at the Henry Ford Estate Dam: Handout, accessed 

December 17, 2019, at http://www.allianceofrougecommunities.com/PDFs/general/HFE%20Dam%20Fishway%20

Public%20Education%20Handout.pdf.

Beam, J.D., and Braunscheidel, J.J., 1998, Rouge River 

assessment: Ann Arbor, Mich., Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 22.

Carter, J.L., Resh, V.H., and Hannaford, M.J., 2017, Macroinvertebrates as biotic indicators of environmental quality, in 

Lamberti, G.A., and Hauer, F.R., eds., Methods in stream 

ecology, Third Edition, Cambridge, Mass., Academic Press, 

v. 2, p. 293-318.

Cave, K.A., Murray, J.E., Bagale, E.J., Lovall, S.B., Andrews, 

N.J., and Johnson, C.R., 2004, Rouge River Gateway

Project—Restoration of an urban river: Proceedings of the

Water Environment Federation, v. 2002, no. 2, p. 148–172.

Craig, B., Mullett, N., Petrella, S., Siedlaczek, B., Selzer, M., 

Tewkesbury, J., Ball, Z., and Bailey, A., 2012, The Rouge 

River Area of Concern—Beneficial use impairments 

delisting strategy: Alliance of Rouge Communities and 

Rouge River Remedial Action Plan, 56 p.

Creal, W.S., Hanshue, S., Kosek, S., Oemke, M., and Walterhouse, M., 1996, Update of GLEAS Procedure 51 metric 

scoring and interpretation: Great Lakes and Environmental 

Assessment Section, Surface Water Quality Division Report 

MI/DEQ/SWQ–96/068, revised May 1998, 27 p.

DeBruyne, R.L., Roseman, E.F., Fischer, J.L., and Jackson, 

S.A., 2020, Pre-restoration biological and physical assessment of the lower Rouge River, MI, 2018:U.S. Geological

Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9GUZ668.

Environmental Consulting & Techology, 2015, Rouge 

Oxbow Restoration Project-Phase III Design: Final Report 

to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration / 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, NOAA Grant Number: 

NA13NMF4630214, Ann Arbor, Mich., 17 p. plus 

appendices.
References Cited 51

Fischer, J.L., Roseman, E.F., Mayer, C.M., and Qian, S., 2018, 

Effectiveness of shallow water habitat remediation for 

improving fish habitat in a large temperate river: Ecological Engineering, v. 123, p. 54–64, accessed June 3, 2019, at 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.07.022.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, 2019, More Success in the 

Rouge River AOC: Oxbow Restoration Phase 3: accessed 

December 29, 2019, at https://www.glri.us/node/159.

Guy, C.S., Braaten, P.J., Herzog, D.P., Pitlo, J., and 

Rogers, R.S., 2009, Warmwater fish in rivers, in 

Bonar, S.A., Hubert, W.A., and Willis, D.W., eds., Standard 

methods for sampling North American freshwater fishes: 

Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, p. 59–84.

Manny, B.A., Edsall, T.A. and Jaworski, E., 1988, The Detroit 

River, Michigan: an ecological profile: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, v. 85, no. 7, 86p.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008, 

Qualitative biological and habitat survey protocols for 

wadable streams and rivers, April 24, 1990: Water Bureau 

Policy and Procedures, no. WB–SWAS–051, revised 

June 1991, August 1996, January 1997, May 2002, and 

December 2008.

Miranda, L.E., 2009, Standardizing electrofishing power 

for boat electrofishing, in Bonar, S.A., Hubert, W.A., and 

Willis, D.W., eds., Standard methods for sampling North 

American freshwater fishes: Bethesda, Md., American 

Fisheries Society, p. 223–230.

Mueller, D.S., Wagner, C.R., Rehmel, M.S., Oberg, K.A., 

and Rainville, F., 2013, Measuring discharge with acoustic 

Doppler current profilers from a moving boat (ver. 2.0, 

December 2013): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods, book 3, chap. A22, 95 p.

Omernik, J.M., and Gallant, A.L., 1988, Ecoregions of the 

Upper Midwest States: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3–88/037 (NTIS 

PB89138440), 56 p.

Price, M., 2014, 2013 Rouge River ecosystem monitoring 

and assessment report: Clinton Township, Mich., Rouge 

River Ecosystem Monitoring and Assessment Report RPO–

WMGT–TR76, 26 p.

Schloesser, D.W., and Manny, B.A., 1982, Distribution and 

relative abundance of submersed aquatic macrophytes in 

the St. Clair-Detroit River ecosystem: Ann Arbor, Mich., 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, Administrative Report 82–7, 21 p.

Trautman, M.B., 1981, Fishes of Ohio (2nd ed.): Columbus, 

Ohio, Ohio State University Press, 782 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011, Environmental assessment—Rouge River, Section 1135 Ecosystem Restoration, 

Wayne County, Michigan: Detroit, Mich., U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, CELRE–PL–E, 41 p.

Appendix 1. Supplementary Information

Appendix 1 includes supplementary photographic vouchers for the herpetofauna assessment conducted on the Rouge River.

Figure 1.1. Thamnophis sirtalis (eastern garter snake) observed 

during terrestrial herpetofauna surveys. Photograph by the 

U.S. Geological Survey.

Figure 1.2. Graptemys geographica (northern map turtles) 

basking on a log in the river. Photograph by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.
54 Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018

Figure 1.3. Apolone spinifiera (eastern spiny softshell turtle) basking 

on a log. Photograph by U.S. Geological Survey.

Figure 1.4. Thamnophis butleri (Butler’s garter snake) observed 

during terrestrial herpetofauna surveys. Photograph by the 

U.S. Geological Survey.
For more information about this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Great Lakes Science Center

1451 Green Road

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

United States

734-994-3331

Publishing support provided by the Madison and Rolla 

Publishing Service Centers
Roseman and others—Biological and Habitat Assessment of the Lower Rouge River, Michigan, 2018—Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5009

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205009