Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 11–21 | Cite as

Climate variability and the sensitivity of downstream temperature to treated wastewater discharge: a simulation analysis

Article

Abstract

Anthropogenic influences and climate variability and change pose a challenge to conserving cold-water resources and associated biota in the US Rocky Mountain region. State and federal regulators set temperature standards for point-source wastewater dischargers to maintain healthy stream conditions. Regulators use recent receiving water data and temperature standards to calculate permitted effluent temperature and discharge. Thus, changes in receiving waters, especially stream temperature or discharge, may have a significant effect on permit levels for a wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, understanding the effects of climate variation on stream discharge and temperature is important in assessing potential changes to future wastewater effluent permits. In this study, we analyzed the challenge of keeping downstream temperatures below established maxima in the face of climate-induced variations in stream discharge and temperature.

Keywords

Wastewater Stream temperature Water quality Climate change 

Supplementary material

10669_2014_9532_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (932 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 931 kb)

References

  1. Bartholow JM (1989) Stream temperature investigations: field and analytic methods. In stream flow information paper: No. 13. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  2. Braley, S (2008) Dealing with temperature listings on the 303(d) list: is there a better way? Water Quality Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/reference_files/WEFManuscriptSession9a-2.pdf
  3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2011) Temperature criteria methodology policy statement 06-1. Water Quality Control Commission, Denver, CO. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHEWQCC/CBON/1251590854258
  4. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2013) Regulation No. 31: the basic standards and methodologies for surface water. Water Quality Control Commission, Denver, CO. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHEWQCC/CBON/1251590854248
  5. Colorado Water Conservation Board (2010) Colorado’s water supply future: state of Colorado 2050 municipal and industrial water use projections. Prepared for the Colorado water conservation board by Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., and Harvey Economics. Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  6. Garfin G, Jardine A, Merideth R, Black M, LeRoy S (2013) Assessment of climate change in the Southwest United States. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graves D, Maule A (2014) A stakeholder project to model water temperature under future climate scenarios in the Satus and Toppenish watersheds of the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Climatic Change 124:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hill RA, Hawkins CP (2014) Using modelled stream temperatures to predict macro-spatial patterns of stream invertebrate biodiversity. Freshw Biol 59:2632–2644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holsinger L, Keane R, Isaak D, Eby L, Young M (2014) Relative effects of climate change and wildfires on stream temperatures: a simulation modeling approach in a Rocky Mountain watershed. Clim Change 124:191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Isaak DJ, Wollrab S, Horan D, Chandler G (2012) Climate change effects on stream and river temperatures across the northwest U.S. from 1980–2009 and implications for salmonid fishes. Clim Change 113:499–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lukas J, Barsugli J, Doesken N, Rangwala I, Wolter K (2014) Climate change in Colorado: a synthesis to support water resources management and adaptation. A Report for the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Western Water Assessment, University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  12. Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (2014) Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p 841Google Scholar
  13. Mohseni O, Stefan H, Eaton J (2003) Global warming and potential changes in fish habitat in U.S. streams. Climatic Change 59:389–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sprague LA (2005) Drought effects on water quality in the South Platte river basin, Colorado. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Todd AS, Coleman MA, Konowal AM, May MK, Johnson S, Vieira NK (2008) Development of new water temperature criteria to protect Colorado’s fisheries. Fisheries 33(9):433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Udall B (2013) Water: impacts, risks, and adaptation. In: Assessment of climate change in the Southwest United States: a report prepared for the national climate assessment. Garfin G, Jardine A, Merideth R, Black M, LeRoy S (eds) A report by the Southwest climate alliance. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 197–217Google Scholar
  17. Urie H (2010) Boulder’s wastewater too hot for new Colorado rules. Daily Camera, August 12. http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_15762669?source=rss
  18. van Vliet MTH, Ludwig F, Zwolsman JJG, Weedon GP, Kabat P (2011) Global river temperatures and sensitivity to atmospheric warming and changes in river flow. Water Resour Res 47. doi:10.1029/2010WR009198
  19. Webb BW (1996) Trends in stream and river temperature. Hydrol Process 10:205–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Webb BW, Hannah DM, Moore DR, Brown LE, Nobilis F (2008) Recent advances in Stream and river temperature research. Hydrol Process 22:902–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Water AssessmentUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations