1. Muskegon Watershed Research Partnership The vision: Collaborative,Integrated, Relevant Science for a better future http://www.mwrp.net

2. Modeling Flow-dependent Habitat in the Lower Muskegon River: A Progress Report M.J. Wiley, C.M. Riseng, E.S. Rutherford, and J.A. Tyler With special thanks to Matt Ladewig, Solomon David, and Lori Ivan

3. How do natural and other variations in hydrology affect habitat and fish recruitment in the Lower River?

4. Land use/cover Land Transformation Model Physical River Environment Hydrogeol & Chem Models (Table 1) Ecological Services Economic Valuation Models (Economic Model) River/Watershed Biology Biological Models (Table 2 and affiliated MRP Proposal) Social Drivers Cultural Models & Data (Sustainable Systems) Muskegon River Ecological Modeling System (MREMS)

5. ClimateReach HydrologyReach HydraulicsLocal hydraulics and substratum Fish growth & mortality Empirical or Hec_HMS via DSS record Hec_RAS Steelhead IBM hours ~x00 km 2 decades ~ x00 km 2 weeks ~x000 km 2 days ~x km 2 days ~x m 2 days x cm 2 Landscape Historical Flows Empirical LTM2 Model

6. Linking the Models Tyler and Rutherford 2002 An Individual-based Bioenergetics Model (IBM) developed initially for Manistee River Steelhead. USACE Hydrologic Eng. Center’s River Analysis System (RAS) [nexGen version of HEC-2] With extensive utilization of HEC GeoRAS extensions in ArcView 3.1 environment

7. Habitat Modeling Objectives Habitat Modeling Objectives Provide linkage between MREMS hydrologic modeling and habitat sensitive IBM Bioenergetic fisheries models Provide linkage between MREMS hydrologic modeling and habitat sensitive IBM Bioenergetic fisheries models Simulate affects of daily hydrologic change on local velocity, depth, substrate, and food availability Simulate affects of daily hydrologic change on local velocity, depth, substrate, and food availability

8. Key Modeling Issues Key Modeling Issues Large scale X IBM approach = excessive computation! Large scale X IBM approach = excessive computation! Large study extent precludes ground surveys for topographic data Large study extent precludes ground surveys for topographic data DEM errors and resolution DEM errors and resolution Limited biological surveys ( modeling everywhere; sampling not! ) Limited biological surveys ( modeling everywhere; sampling not! )

9. Key Modeling Solutions Key Modeling Solutions Model by ecologically homogeneous Valley Segment {VSEC} Model by ecologically homogeneous Valley Segment {VSEC} Build a GIS model of reach channel habitat integrating data air photo, ADP profiling, and field reconnascence Build a GIS model of reach channel habitat integrating data air photo, ADP profiling, and field reconnascence Use the GIS Channel Model and preliminary hydraulic modeling to adjust DEM x,y,z Use the GIS Channel Model and preliminary hydraulic modeling to adjust DEM x,y,z Link stratified biological (prey) sampling to GIS Channel Model and summarize by substrate class Link stratified biological (prey) sampling to GIS Channel Model and summarize by substrate class

10. Thirteen study reaches on the Lower Muskegon Vsec subunit “boxes” defining RAS reach modeling extents 17.2 18.2 30 km

11. Building the GIS Channel Model Air Photos (1998) Field reconnaissance Acoustic Doppler profiling

12. ArcView GIS Channel Model high Res DEM ArcView GIS “hydraulically Corrected” Topographic Model HEC-RAS V.I HEC-RAS V.II GeoRAS Export estimated WS Building the Topographic Model

14. TIN (Triangular Irregular Network)

15. Channel Model and adjusted DEM are well matched

16. Cross-section profiles are then extracted (using GeoRAS) for HEC_RAS

17. HEC_RAS Simulations run for 1 year 167 transects 20-50 cells per transect (Q dependent) Typically ~4000-5000 cells Depth, Velocity, Substrate

18. 12.75 12.49 12.13 12.00 11.88 11.64 11.49 11.32 11.18 10.98 10.75 10.54 10.39* 10.24 9.59* 9.47 9.20 8.94 8.83* 8.72 8.53 8.36 7.78 7.4* 7.135* 7.02 6.84 6.345* 6.23 5.93 5.73 5.595* 5.46 5.25 5.12* 4.99 4.75 4.54 4.273.905* 3.65* 3.52 3.32 3.00 2.86* 2.72 2.57 1.75 1.31 1.09.99* 0.89 0.61.485* 0.36 musk_18_2 Plan: Plan 02 2/10/2005 Legend WS PF 1 Ground Bank Sta Levee Ground

19. Example cross-section unsteady (continuous) run for: VSEC unit 18.2: yr=2001 Cross section ID= 6742.67 (meters up from downstrean end of 18.2) Flows can be driven by hydrographs from gage records or MREMS hydrologic models

20. RAS interpolated cross-sections Channel Unit 18.2 HEC_RAS hydraulic simulation at 20 cms Cross-section scale data output for steelhead IBM

21. Results for 2001-2002 Steelhead IBM operating in Muskegon River VSEC 18.2

22. Next Steps IBM coding needs more adjustment to take full advantage of the spatial and temporal resolution of the RAS modeling IBM coding needs more adjustment to take full advantage of the spatial and temporal resolution of the RAS modeling Complete the other VSEC boxes and their respective RAS Steelhead models Complete the other VSEC boxes and their respective RAS Steelhead models Begin exploring alternate hydrologic scenarios Begin exploring alternate hydrologic scenarios