Numerical simulation of the impact of sediment supply and streamflow variations on channel grain sizes and Chinook salmon habitat in mountain drainage networks

Climatically driven changes in streamflow and hillslope sediment supply could potentially alter stream surface grain size distribution patterns and thereby impact habitat for a number of threatened and endangered in‐stream fish species. Relatively little is known about hydrograph (shape, peak flow) influence or the relative importance of chronic and episodic hillslope inputs on channel conditions. To better understand these external drivers, we calculated sediment routing through a gravel‐bedded river network using a one‐dimensional (1D) bedload transport model. We calculated changes in grain sizes and estimated Chinook salmon habitat suitability caused by a dry year and an extreme flood hydrograph, and chronic (diffusive, overland flow) or pulse (landslide, debris flow) hillslope sediment supplies. To obtain accurate channel conditions, a relatively high reference Shields stress, representative of steep mountain streams, was needed. An extreme event flood without any hillslope sediment inputs caused widespread bed coarsening and a decrease in aquatic habitat. Chronic sediment input combined with this hydrograph eliminated any changes in grain size and habitat, although when combined with a dry year flow, caused systematic bed fining. The influence of a given hydrograph therefore highly depends on the hillslope sediment supply. Regardless of the flow hydrograph or sediment pulse timing, grain size distribution or location, pulse sediment inputs did not cause widespread grain size changes despite being 100 times the total chronic input volume. Widespread and continuous hillslope sediment inputs may influence channel grain sizes and aquatic habitat more than a single discrete sediment pulse. Depending on the magnitudes of flow hydrograph and sediment supply alterations, climate change may induce no differences in grain sizes or very dramatic changes with significant consequences for long‐term sustainability. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

One‐dimensional and two‐dimensional hydrodynamic modeling derived flow properties: impacts on aquatic habitat quality predictions

Studies of the effects of hydrodynamic model dimensionality on simulated flow properties and derived quantities such as aquatic habitat quality are limited. It is important to close this knowledge gap especially now that entire river networks can be mapped at the microhabitat scale due to the advent of point‐cloud techniques. This study compares flow properties, such as depth and velocity, and aquatic habitat quality predicted from pseudo‐2D and fully 2D hydrodynamic modeling. The models are supported by high‐resolution, point‐cloud derived bathymetries, from which close‐spaced cross‐sections were extracted for the 1D modeling, of three morphologically and hydraulically different river systems. These systems range from small low‐gradient meandering pool–riffle to large steep confined plane‐bed rivers. We test the effects of 1D and 2D models on predicted hydraulic variables at cross‐sections and over the full bathymetry to quantify the differences due to model dimensionality and those from interpolation. Results show that streambed features, whose size is smaller than cross‐sectional spacing, chiefly determine the different results of 1D and 2D modeling whereas flow discharge, stream size, morphological complexity and model grid sizes have secondary effects on flow properties and habitat quality for a given species and life stage predicted from 1D and 2D modeling. In general, the differences in hydraulic variables are larger in the bathymetric than in the cross‐sectional analysis, which suggests that some errors are introduced from interpolation of spatially disaggregated simulated variables with a 1D model, instead of model dimensionality 1D or 2D. Flow property differences are larger for velocity than for water surface elevation and depth. Differences in weighted usable area (WUA) derived from 1D and 2D modeling are relatively small for low‐gradient meandering pool–riffle systems, but the differences in the spatial distribution of microhabitats can be considerable although clusters of same habitat quality are spatially comparable. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.