Snow sublimation is an important component of the snow mass balance, but the spatial and temporal variability of this process is not well understood in mountain environments. This study combines a process‐based snow model (SnowModel) with eddy covariance (EC) measurements to investigate (1) the spatio‐temporal variability of simulated snow sublimation with respect to station observations, (2) the contribution of snow sublimation to the ablation of the snowpack, and (3) the sensitivity and response of snow sublimation to bark beetle‐induced forest mortality and climate warming across the north‐central Colorado Rocky Mountains. EC‐based observations of snow sublimation compared well with simulated snow sublimation at stations dominated by surface and canopy sublimation, but blowing snow sublimation in alpine areas was not well captured by the EC instrumentation. Water balance calculations provided an important validation of simulated sublimation at the watershed scale. Simulated snow sublimation across the study area was equivalent to 28% of winter precipitation on average, and the highest relative snow sublimation fluxes occurred during the lowest snow years. Snow sublimation from forested areas accounted for the majority of sublimation fluxes, highlighting the importance of canopy and sub‐canopy surface sublimation in this region. Simulations incorporating the effects of tree mortality due to bark‐beetle disturbance resulted in a 4% reduction in snow sublimation from forested areas. Snow sublimation rates corresponding to climate warming simulations remained unchanged or slightly increased, but total sublimation losses decreased by up to 6% because of a reduction in snow covered area and duration.

Continued climate warming is reducing seasonal snowpacks in the western United States, where >50% of historical water supplies were snowmelt‐derived. In the Upper Colorado River Basin, declining snow water equivalent (SWE) and altered surface water input (SWI, rainfall and snowmelt available to enter the soil) timing and magnitude affect streamflow generation and water availability. To adapt effectively to future conditions, we need to understand current spatiotemporal distributions of SWE and SWI and how they may change in future decades. We developed 100‐m SnowModel simulations for water years 2001–2013 and two scenarios: control (CTL) and pseudo‐global‐warming (PGW). The PGW fraction of precipitation falling as snow was lower relative to CTL, except for November–April at high elevations. PGW peak SWE was lower for low (−45%) and mid elevations (−14%), while the date of peak SWE was uniformly earlier in the year for all elevations (17–23 days). Currently unmonitored high elevation snow represented a greater fraction of total PGW SWE. PGW peak daily SWI was higher for all elevations (30%–42%), while the dates of SWI peaks and centroids were earlier in the year for all elevations under PGW. PGW displayed elevated winter SWI, lower summer SWI, and changes in spring SWI timing were elevation‐dependent. Although PGW peak SWI was elevated and earlier compared to CTL, SWI was more evenly distributed throughout the year for PGW. These simulated shifts in the timing and magnitude of SWE and SWI have broad implications for water management in dry, snow‐dominated regions.

This study uses a combination of field measurements and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) operational snow data to understand the drivers of snow density and snow water equivalent (SWE) variability at the basin scale (100s to 1000s km2). Historic snow course snowpack density observations were analyzed within a multiple linear regression snow density model to estimate SWE directly from snow depth measurements. Snow surveys were completed on or about 1 April 2011 and 2012 and combined with NRCS operational measurements to investigate the spatial variability of SWE near peak snow accumulation. Bivariate relations and multiple linear regression models were developed to understand the relation of snow density and SWE with terrain variables (derived using a geographic information system (GIS)). Snow density variability was best explained by day of year, snow depth, UTM Easting, and elevation. Calculation of SWE directly from snow depth measurement using the snow density model has strong statistical performance, and model validation suggests the model is transferable to independent data within the bounds of the original data set. This pathway of estimating SWE directly from snow depth measurement is useful when evaluating snowpack properties at the basin scale, where many time-consuming measurements of SWE are often not feasible. A comparison with a previously developed snow density model shows that calibrating a snow density model to a specific basin can provide improvement of SWE estimation at this scale, and should be considered for future basin scale analyses. During both water year (WY) 2011 and 2012, elevation and location (UTM Easting and/or UTM Northing) were the most important SWE model variables, suggesting that orographic precipitation and storm track patterns are likely driving basin scale SWE variability. Terrain curvature was also shown to be an important variable, but to a lesser extent at the scale of interest.