High‐resolution temperature modeling of stream reconstruction alternatives

Abstract

AbstractStreams are complex where biology, hydrology, and atmospheric processes are all important. Because quantifying and modeling of these systems can be challenging, many teams go directly to prescribed restoration treatments and principles. Restoration on the Middle Fork of the John Day River in Oregon, USA, shows how a project that was designed according to widely accepted restoration principles may lead to outcomes contrary to one of the project's stated goals: reducing peak temperatures for endangered salmonids on the site. This study employed the most sophisticated equipment available for stream temperature monitoring, including approximately 1 million independent hourly measurements in the 2‐week period considered. These data were collected along the river channel with fiber optic–distributed temperature sensing and were used to quantify thermal dynamics. These observations were paired with a physically based stream temperature model which was then employed to predict temperature change from design alternatives. Restored‐reach impact on peak temperature was directly correlated with the air–water interfacial area and the percentage of effective shade (R2 > 0.99). The increase in air–water area of the proposed design was predicted to increase daytime stream temperature by as much as 0.5°C upon completion of the work. Shade from riparian vegetation was found to potentially mitigate stream temperature increases, though only after decades of growth. A moderately dense canopy of 5 m tall trees blocking 17% of daily shortwave solar radiation is predicted to mitigate predicted temperature increases over the 1,800 m reach but also increases nighttime temperatures due to blocking of long‐wave radiation. These outcomes may not be intuitive to restoration practitioners and show how quantitative analysis can benefit the design of a project. This is significant in an area where riparian vegetation has been difficult to reestablish. Without quantitative analysis, restoration efforts can lead to outcomes opposite to stated goals and may be costly and disruptive interventions to fragile stream systems.