watervulnerability
watervulnerability
watervulnerability
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Rocky<br />
Mountain Region (R2)<br />
Initially, we reviewed the HUC-5 data for the composite, and MIROC_3.2 models, comparing projections<br />
of historic condition with two time periods (2030-2059 and 2070-2099) for the following parameters:<br />
• precipitation (monthly total, seasonal* total)<br />
• tmax (daily maximum temperature monthly average, seasonal* average)<br />
• tmin (daily minimum temperature monthly average, seasonal* average)<br />
• runoff (monthly total, seasonal* total)<br />
• baseflow (monthly total, seasonal* total)<br />
• hydrograph (runoff + baseflow as monthly total, seasonal* total)<br />
*Seasonal breakdown: winter = December, January, February; spring = March, April, May;<br />
summer = June, July, August; fall = September, October, November<br />
Charts for each HUC-5 were created to compare the composite and MIROC_3.2 model results to the<br />
historic trend for these parameters (this information is available as GMUG Appendix A at<br />
www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/wva/appendixes). (Note: We did not chart the PCM1model results that averaged<br />
between the composite and MIROC_3.2 results). For most HUC-5 watersheds, the data display future<br />
decreases in summer and fall precipitation and shifts in precipitation between winter and spring.<br />
Temperature increases of 2 to 3 ˚C are predicted for both maximum and minimum temperatures<br />
throughout the year. Runoff periods are predicted to shift one to two months earlier and total runoff is<br />
reduced. (Note: these predictions are in addition to the changes already seen since 1978, described<br />
earlier.)<br />
Because some HUC-5 watersheds include a wide range of elevations (ranges of 5,000 to 7,000 feet), we<br />
also reviewed the 6 km-grid scale VIC data. Predicted results for the composite and MIROC_3.2 models<br />
were compared to the historic trend for the same parameters listed above, as well as for<br />
evapotranspiration. We looked at the actual change between modeled and historic results, and the percent<br />
change on a monthly basis at the 6 km-grid scale. Maps showing monthly results at the grid scale display<br />
large differences between higher and lower elevation areas (see this information is available as GMUG<br />
Appendix B at www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/wva/appendixes).<br />
We used the six geographic areas (areas with similar climatic regimes and elevation ranges) to examine<br />
predicted climate changes (see Figure 4). Since most of the lower elevations within the HUC-5 scale<br />
watersheds are actually below the GMUG Forest boundary, reviewing exposure parameters at the<br />
geographic area scale is more representative for the GMUG.<br />
We chose to focus on a smaller subset of VIC parameters at the geographic area scale. We compared the<br />
predicted seasonal temperature changes (both maximum and minimum averages) from the MIROC_3.2<br />
model to the historic model. Figure 16 displays the seasonal increase in maximum average temperature by<br />
geographic area. Figure 17 displays the seasonal increase in minimum average temperature by geographic<br />
area.<br />
85 Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds to Climate Change