Laserfiche WebLink
<br />were applied as absolutes (i.e. + ~ C), while changes in precipitation were applied as percentages (i.e. + 10% <br />of precipitation in the base case).9 <br /> <br />RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MODELING <br /> <br />Annual Runoff <br /> <br />For the three Colorado River sub-basins, the magnitude of changes in mean annual runoff <br /> <br />induced by the hypothetical scenarios ranged from decreases of 33% to increases of 19%. The greatest <br /> <br />decrease in runoff was seen in the East River for a ~ C increase in temperature in conjunction with a 20% <br /> <br />decrease in precipitation. The greatest increase was seen in the White River basin when a ~ C increase was <br /> <br />combined with a 20% increase in precipitation. In all cases, at least a 10% increase in precipitation was <br /> <br />required to offset the effect on annual runoff of a ~ C temperature rise. A 20% increase in precipitation <br /> <br />caused runoff to increase in every case. For the Two-elevation moclel, mean annual runoff decreased by <br /> <br />12% and 21 % when the respective hypothetical scenarios of T + ~ C and T + ~ C were applied with no change <br /> <br />in precipitation. Tables 5 through 8 show these results. In general, the Two-elevation moclel was more <br /> <br />sensitive to increases in temperature than the three sub-basin moclels. While this may be an artifact of the <br /> <br />Two-elevation moclel itself, it may also be explained by the increased importance of evaporation in the lower <br /> <br />elevation zones that the model encompasses. <br /> <br />For the Animas and East rivers, all GCM scenarios led to decreases in runoff, ranging from -8% <br /> <br />to -20%, which reflects the dominant effect of increased evaporation. For the White River, two out of the <br /> <br />four GCM scenarios showed increases in runoff (of 10% to 12%), while the other two scenarios resulted in <br /> <br />9 Mean monthly changes (rather than mean annual changes) cannot be used in the NWSRFS without <br />moclifications to the moclel. All historical temperature and precipitation data are stored in data files that are <br />called upon by the calibration program. The program then normalizes these data for the basin being <br />mocleled using a single coefficient. Mean annual temperature and precipitation data can therefore be easily <br />moclified by altering these coefficients. In order to incorporate monthly changes, however, it would be <br />necessary to alter the data associated with particular months by different amounts. While this can be done, <br />it requires access to the actual program files, which were not available for this study. <br /> <br />21 <br />