Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Climate change impact on the hydrology of Spencer Creek watershed in Southern Ontario, Canada
M.G. Grillakis a, A.G. Koutroulis a, I.K. Tsanis b,a,
a b

Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania GR73100, Greece Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L7

a r t i c l e

i n f o

s u m m a r y
This study is for the assessment of climate change impact on the future hydrology of Spencer Creek watershed located in Southern Ontario, Canada under the A2 scenario of the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). The study is particularly concerned with changes in the climate variables and the seasonal and interannual ow regimes of the study area. The analysis also addresses the annual exceedance probability of extreme precipitation, temperature and ow events. Potential hydrologic effects of climate change were assessed for the Spencer Creek by imposing changes in precipitation and temperature derived from the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) climate simulations between 2040 and 2069. The climate models results were used as input to three hydrological models to produce projections of Spencer Creek watershed discharges. The results were compared to the observed discharges between 1989 and 2008. Notwithstanding the variability between the different regional climate model and hydrological model projections that envelop the future climate scenarios and the hydrological modeling uncertainties, all future simulations show an increase in the average interannual discharge, but also a noteworthy change in the seasonal distribution of the discharges. While the former is mainly attributed to the average annual precipitation, which tends to increase, the change in seasonal distribution of discharges is in line with the temperature increase of the winter and spring seasons that results in earlier snowmelt. Important changes were found in the annual exceedance probability (recurrence interval) of the extreme precipitation, temperature and runoff events. 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 28 October 2010 Received in revised form 27 June 2011 Accepted 30 June 2011 Available online 12 July 2011 This manuscript was handled by Konstantine P. Georgakakos, Editor-in-Chief Keywords: Climate-change impacts Spencer Creek Ontario Future extremes Bias correction Canada

1. Introduction The prediction of the forthcoming climate change at regional scales is vital for climate change adaptation issues. The climate impact studies are based on scenarios that reect different social balances between the world and local growth, the nancial and environmental values. Several climate scenarios established by the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios SRES (IPCC SRES, 2000) are the research basis of international climate-change projects. In this study, the NARCCAP future climate projections were used, in order to assess the climate change impact on Spencer Creek watershed future hydrology. The gas emission scenario used in NARCCAP future climate simulations was the A2 scenario, as described in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Nakicenvoic et al., 2000). It is characterized by a heterogeneous world, with self-reliance and preservation of local identities to be emphasized and continuous population increase, reaching total population over 10 billion people worldwide by 2050. This scenario describes
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, Canada. E-mail addresses: tsanis@mcmaster.ca, tsanis@hydromech.gr (I.K. Tsanis).
0022-1694/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.06.018

regional orientation of the economic development while the technological development is relatively slow, compared to the other scenarios. This study uses the Global Climate Model (GCM) driven Regional Climate Models (RCMs) used in the NARCCAP experiments. The projections of climate models extend from 2040 to 2069. The RCM climate data were bias corrected using daily precipitation and mean daily temperature data for 19892008, collected by Environment Canada. In order to get better insight into the correlation between climate change and water resources, climatic drivers data of past and future are used as an input to models to translate the assumed climate changes into hydrological responses (Middelkoop et al., 2001). In the past two decades, many such studies have been conducted, such as those described in Leavesley (1994), Ozkul (2009) and Forbes et al. (2010). Precipitation and temperature are the most dominant climate drivers for river hydrology. The importance of temperature becomes even greater in snow-dominated basins where it controls the snowmelt process during the late-winter and spring months. A warmer winter leads to a greater amount of days experiencing temperatures above zero Celsius degrees resulting in more frequent rain events. Thus, the runoff increases while the snow accumulation is reduced (Whiteld et al., 2003), which affects not only

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

the runoff, but also the snowpack parameters such as total snow depth and snow-cover duration. The snow depth and snow cover affect the heat exchange between the ground and the atmosphere and thus, the temperature of the ground (Zhang, 2005). The potential impact of a warmer winter on the length of snow season and the snowmelt distribution is more complex, with earlier spring snowmelt to lengthen the soil heating season and thus, leading to a later snow accumulation season start (Lawrence and Slater, 2010). A shallower winter snowpack provides less insulation from cold winter air temperatures, thereby freezing the soil to greater depths, whereas a deeper snowpack provides more insulation resulting in shallower freezing depth of the soils. The uncertainty of future climate predictions is very high. The climate models consist the larger source of uncertainty in climate change impact studies. However, forcing climate model data into hydrological models is the only method that could be applied to predict future changes in hydrology due to climate change. Minville et al. (2008) studied the uncertainties of climate change impact on the hydrology of the Chute-du-Diable watershed in Canada and concluded that of all sources of uncertainty considered, the largest comes from the choice of a GCM, indicating that impact studies based on results from only one GCM should be interpreted with caution. Many studies have been conducted on how to reduce the uncertainty in future climate predictions. Dibike and Coulibaly (2007) stated that hydrological simulations based on precipitation and temperature data downscaled from GCM outputs of the baseline climate should approximate the observed river ows reasonably well, otherwise it would be very difcult to rely on this approach to estimate the possible hydrological impact of any climate-change scenario for the future. Coulibaly (2009) emphasized the advantage of a multi-model approach, to both downscaling and hydrologic modeling, and highlighted uncertainty in estimating hydrological impact of climate change for the Serpent watershed in northeastern Canada. A Bayesian Neural Network (BNN) approach was presented by Khan and Coulibaly (2010) for the estimation of uncertainties from global climate models, emission scenarios, downscaling methods, and hydrologic models for the assessment of the hydrologic effect of climate change for two watershed in northeastern Canada. They suggest that the BNN model could be a good alternative method where resources are not available to implement the general multi-model ensembles approach. Kerkhoven and Gan (2011) examined the unconditional sample of uncertainty of observed streamows and simulated historical and future streamows from a hydrologic model, driven by GCM data, for two watersheds in Western Canada, using multifractal analysis. They concluded that the uncertainties associated with multifractal variation were in the order of 50%. Studying the potential impacts of climate change in southern British Columbia on the causes of ood ows using the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling Analysis General Circulation Model (CGCMA1) simulation results, Loukas et al. (2002) found that the future climate would be wetter and warmer than the present climate. They also found that the overall ood magnitude and frequency would increase. Dibike and Coulibaly (2005) compared two downscaling methods and two hydrologic models to study the hydrologic impact of climate change in the Saguenay watershed in northern Quebec, Canada. Downscaled results indicated a general increasing trend in both the mean daily temperature and variability of daily precipitation values. Their hydrologic impact analysis suggested an overall increasing trend in mean annual river ow and reservoir inow as well as earlier spring peak ows in the basin. The assessment of climate change impacts in hydrology of an area is of great importance because it could affect the seasonal or long-term water availability, or the increased frequency that extreme events with disastrous socio-economic consequences may occur. Thus, long-term development plans should consider the po-

tential future climate change. The recent study of Sultana and Coulibaly (2010) focuses on future changes in the hydrological processes of Spencer Creek watershed in southern Ontario, which is a similar study site of the present research. For the SRES A2 future climate-change scenario, the downscaled GCM results indicated an increase of approximately 15% in the annual mean precipitation and 23 C increase in annual mean maximum and minimum temperatures for the 20462065 period. The coupled MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 hydrologic model resulted in a 15% annual decrease in snow storage, 110% increase in annual ET, a 0.56% decrease in the annual groundwater recharge, and an approximately 1025% increase in annual streamows, for the same period in Spencer Creek watershed. Several scenarios of future climate indicate a likelihood of increased intense dry and hot extremes for many regions around the world (Beniston et al., 2007; Christensen and Christensen, 2003; Kundzewicz et al., 2005; Semmler and Jacob, 2004; Kundzewicz et al., 2006; Easterling et al., 2000; Tsanis et al., 2011). The potential for intense precipitation is likely to increase in the warmer climate of the future, contributing to the growth of ood hazard in areas where inundations are typically triggered by heavy rain (Kundzewicz et al., 2006). However, the question remains as to whether or not the frequency and/or magnitude of extremes is also increasing and, if so, whether it is in response to climate variability and change (Kundzewicz et al., 2005). Floods and droughts are

Table 1 Thresholds of SPI for drought characterization (McKee et al., 1993). SPI value 2 or more 1.51.99 11.49 00.99 0 to 0.99 1 to 1.49 1.5 to 1.99 2 or less Category Extremely wet Severely wet Moderately wet Mildly wet Mildly dry Moderately dry Severely dry Extremely dry

Table 2 Distribution types used for extreme-value analysis and corresponding parameters. Distribution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EV1-Max (Gumbel) EV1-Max (Gumbel, L-Moments) EV1-Min (Gumbel) EV1-Min (Gumbel, L-Moments) EV2-Max EV2-Max (L-Moments) EV3-Min (Weibull) EV3-Min (Weibull, L-Moments) Exponential Exponential (L-Moments) Galton Gamma GEV-Max GEV-Max (kappa specied) GEV-Max (kappa specied, L-Moments) GEV-Max (L-Moments) GEV-Min GEV-Min (kappa specied) GEV-Min (kappa specied, L-Moments) GEV-Min (L-Moments) Log Pearson III Log Normal Normal Normal (L-Moments) Pareto Pareto (L-Moments) Pearson III Parameters lambda, psi lambda, psi lambda, psi lambda, psi kappa, lambda kappa, lambda kappa, lambda kappa, lambda lambda, psi lambda, psi my, sy, psi kappa, lambda kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, my, sy my, sy my, sy kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda, kappa, lambda,

psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi

psi psi psi

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Fig. 1. Study areaSpencer Creek, Ontario, Canada.

complex processes triggered by different mechanisms and are affected by different ways by climate change, and thus blanket statements on the direction of change in extremes are most probably inaccurate. The discrimination of any tendency with regard to the extreme climatic events that are by denition rare should be handled with great care and formal uncertainty analysis. This study examined the potential interannual and seasonal climate change on Spencer Creek located in Southern Ontario, Canada, and the future impact on its hydrology through a multi-model approach. The study also elaborates on the statistical signicance and uncertainty of multi-model climate and rainfallrunoff model results and the potentially induced severe hydrologic phenomena, such as abnormal precipitation intensity for a specic annual exceedance probability (AEP), ow or extended wet or dry periods compared to current climate. 2. Methodology 2.1. Climate variables modeling The precipitation and temperature projections used in this research were derived from NARCCAP. NARCCAP is an international program that serves the high resolution climate scenario needs of the United States, Canada, and Northern Mexico that uses regional climate models, coupled global climate models that performed climate simulations in past and future periods. NARCCAP research program focuses on the uncertainty across different GCMs and RCMs. Future climate variables used in this study were predicted by three regional climate models driven by three global model

datasets under A2 gas emission scenario described in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (Nakicenvoic et al., 2000). The A2 is at the higher end of the gas emission scenarios. The A2 scenario was selected to reect the impact of the largest potential climate change. Four couples of GCM driven RCMs provided daily precipitation and daily mean temperature data for the current period 19892000 and future period 20402069. The RCMs used were Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM) driven by Canadian Global Climate Model version 3-CGCM3, T47 spatial resolution, (Flato, 2005), Hadley Centre Regional Climate Model (HRM3) driven by United Kingdom (UK) Hadley Centre Climate Model version 3-HadCM3) (Gordon et al., 2000; Pope et al., 2000), RegCM model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), version 3 (RCM3), driven by Canadian Global Climate Model version 3 and RCM3 driven by Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Climate Model version 2.1-CM2.1, (GFDL, 2004). 2.2. Bias correction 2.2.1. Precipitation bias correction method A problem with the use of RCMs for hydrological purposes is that the simulated precipitation differs systematically from the observed precipitation (Leander and Buishand, 2007). The biases are often related to the mean value, standard deviation and the inability of the variables to reproduce extreme events. Thus, bias correction of RCM model results is sought in order to get more realistic results from the forced hydrological impact models that make use of RCM model data. Sharma et al. (2011) examined the necessity of bias correction of raw RCM data by using statistical downscaling techniques on raw CRCM4.2 data. They found that

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Fig. 2. Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for raw (left) and bias corrected (right) precipitation (upper) and temperature (lower) mean monthly values for Hamilton Airport station data between 1989 and 2000. The observed precipitation and temperature data CDFs are included.

the bias corrected CRCM4.2 data, improved signicantly the HBV hydrologic model ability to accurately simulate streamow as compared to the use of the raw CRCM4.2 data. The bias-correction method used in this study to correct the frequency and the intensity of daily precipitation of climate models is the one presented by Ines and Hansen (2006). The method was applied to each of the 12 calendar months, in a two-step procedure, with the rst step to correct the precipitation frequency and the second to correct the precipitation intensity. The procedure calibrates both the frequency and the intensity distribution of daily modeled precipitation relative to a target station. If the modeled precipitation frequency is greater than observed frequency for a given month, averaged across years, it is corrected by discarding rainfall events below a calibrated threshold. To correct the intensity distribution, each modeled precipitation amount above the calibrated threshold is mapped from the modeled precipitation intensity distribution to the observed distribution. A gamma distribution (Wilks, 1995) was used for both observed and modeled precipitation intensities. The correction procedure of precipitation frequency truncates the empirical distribution of the raw daily climate model precipitation above the ~ xRCM threshold value, such that the mean frequency of precipitation above the threshold matches the observed mean rainfall frequency. The threshold value ~ xRCM is estimated for each of the 12 calendar months by using the following equation:
1 ~ ~ xRCM F RCM F obs x

tion or observed daily precipitation. The threshold observed precipitation amount (~ x) of model daily precipitation was set to 0.1 mm. For the precipitation intensity correction, the two-parameter gamma distribution of Eq. (2) is applied to t the truncated daily climate-modeled and observed precipitation data for each of the 12 calendar months (Ines and Hansen, 2006). The CDF of the truncated daily climate-model precipitation was then mapped to the CDF of the observed data as shown in Eq. (3).

F G x; a; b

  1 x a1 x exp ; b ba Ca Z
~ x x

xP~ x

F G x; a; b

f t dt

where a is the shape parameter and b is the scale parameter of the gamma distribution as determined by Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Finally, the corrected RCM precipitation amount x0P on day i is calculated by substituting the tted gamma CDFs into the following equation:

( x0P i

1 F xi P ~ x I;obs F I;RCM xi 0 xi < ~ x

where F() and F1() are the cumulative distribution function (CDF) and its inverse, and subscripts indicate RCM precipitation predic-

2.2.2. Temperature bias correction method A similar method was used to correct bias in the RCM temperature series, proposed by Rao and Hamed (2000). The RCM daily temperature distribution was mapped to the observed distribution for each of the 12 calendar months without any correction of the frequency distribution and with no truncation to the model

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Fig. 3. Observed (black lines) and future simulated (grey lines) climate trends, for precipitation (left gures) and temperature (right gures) climatic variables, for the two reference stations Hamilton RBG (upper gures) and Hamilton Airport (lower gures). A linear regression line was tted to each data set.

temperatures. Instead of the gamma distribution used by Rao and Hamed (2000), a normal distribution was used to map the temperature distribution. 2.3. Standardized precipitation index analysis Drought indices such as the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) (McKee et al., 1993) are indispensible tools to detect, monitor and evaluate drought events in both time and space (Koutroulis et al., 2010). The SPI is a probability index that considers precipitation to determine the rarity of a drought or an anomalously wet event at a particular time scale. The SPI index can be computed for different time scales. Historical monthly precipitation is tted to a gamma probability distribution. The cumulative probability is then transformed to a standard normal distribution with mean zero and variance of one, which is the SPI index. The gamma distribution probability of 48-month average precipitation corresponds to the 48-month SPI index on the standard normal distribution. The SPI index value is then the standardized deviation of the transformed precipitation total from the mean precipitation. Accordingly, three-month SPI is calculated using the three-month average precipitation. The gamma distribution is dened by its frequency or probability density function as given in the following equation:

where a is a shape parameter (a > 0), b is a scale parameter (b > 0), x is the precipitation amount (x > 0) and C(a) is the gamma function (Wilks, 1995). The index has a negative value during droughts, and positive value for wet conditions. As the dry or wet conditions become more severe, the index becomes more negative or positive (Heim, 2000). The positive wet part of the SPI range is arbitrary divided in four categories; mildly wet (0.99 > SPI > 0), moderately wet (1.49 > SPI > 1), severely wet (1.99 > SPI > 1.5), and extremelywet conditions (SPI > 2.0). A wet event is considered to start when the SPI value reaches 1.0 and ends when the SPI becomes negative again (McKee et al., 1993). Thresholds of the SPI for drought characterization are presented in Table 1. There is general agreement that the SPI index computed for short time scales such as 3 or 6 months, describes wet or dry events that affect agricultural practices, while on longer scales such as 24 or 48 months, it describes the effects of a precipitation decit or excess on different water-resources components (Koutroulis et al., 2010). It seems reasonable to deduce that only long time scale SPI analysis would be meaningful in the present work where the precipitation and temperature effects on future streamow of Spencer Creek are studied. The index was estimated for both observed and four future precipitation projections.

2.4. Spencer Creek hydrology modeling Hydrological simulations were performed using three widely used semi-distributed rainfallrunoff models, HBV model (IHMS 5.10.1, HBV 7.1), Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic

g x

1 xa1 ex=b ba Ca

for x > 0

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Table 3 Observed average (19892008) and future (20402069) climate models projected average precipitation (mm/day) and temperature (C) for both Hamilton Airport and Hamilton RBG stations. The change between past and future averages is also presented as a percent change for precipitation and as change in C. Past Future CRCMCGCM3 Hamilton RBG Hamilton Airport P (mm/day) T (C) P (mm/day) T (C) 2.29 8.84 2.44 8.01 2.67 (+16.5%) 11.57 (+2.7 C) 2.75 (+12.7%) 10.71 (+2.7 C) HRM3HadCM3 2.57 (+12.4%) 11.17 (+2.3 C) 2.68 (+9.9%) 10.29 (+2.3 C) RCM3CGCM3 2.73 (+19.5%) 11.06 (+2.2 C) 2.84 (+16.7%) 10.0 (+2.0 C) RCM3GFDL 2.68 (+17.0%) 10.78 (+1.9 C) 2.64 (+8.4%) 9.90 (+1.9 C) 2.66 (+16.3%) 11.15 (+2.3 C) 2.73 (+11.9%) 10.22 (+2.2 C) AVG RCM

Fig. 4. Seasonal variability between the observed and future simulated climate variables. The precipitation (left gures) and temperature (right gures) variability is expressed as difference between each climate projection and past average monthly value for Hamilton RBG (upper gures) and Hamilton Airport (lower gures).

Modeling System HEC-HMS model (v3.4) and Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting (SAC-SMA) model. The HBV (Bergstrm, 1995; Lindstrm et al., 1997; Bergstrm et al., 1997) model consists of four subroutines, a subroutine for snow accumulation and snowmelt based on the degree-day approach, a soil moisture accounting procedure to update the soil water, the runoff generation routine and a ow-routing procedure consisting of a simple lter with triangular distribution of weights (SMHI, 2006). The Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) is designed to simulate the precipitation-runoff processes of dendritic-shaped watershed systems. Its applicability extends to a wide range of geographic areas and has been used for solving a wide range of problems. The HEC-HMS model consists of

Table 4 NashSutcliffe efciency (NS) for the calibration (19901999) and validation (1999 2008) of the three hydrological models for the observed ow data. The efciency of the whole period of observed data (19902008) is also provided. IHMSHBV Calibration period 19901999 Validation Period 20002008 Total Period 19902008 0.74 0.75 0.75 HEC-HMS 0.60 0.48 0.54 SACSMA 0.56 0.66 0.61

four sub-models, the meteorological model that includes evapotranspiration and snow model components, the loss model that accounts for the losses in precipitated water before and during runoff

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Fig. 5. Observed and simulated ows for the three hydrological models at Dundas in the validation hydrological year 20042005.

Fig. 6. Dundas average ow by month for observed data and each hydrologic model 19892008 (left). Dundas average ow by month for simulated ows against observed daily data 19892008 and least square lines (right). Coefcients of determination R2 values are 0.98 for IHMSHBV, 0.95 for HEC-HMS and 0.97 for SACSMA.

occur, the transformation model which routes the runoff and nally the baseow model (HEC-HMS Users Manual, 2009). The SAC-SMA model (Burnash et al., 1973; Burnash,1995) conceptualizes the soil prole as a series of reservoirs with capacities and release coefcients. It computes the surface runoff that occurs when the storage capacity of the upper zone free water is exceeded, the runoff from impermeable surfaces, the direct runoff from additional impervious surfaces and the interow and baseow contributions. The SAC-SMA model was combined with a simple degree-day factor snow model. The efciency of the model simulations as expressed by the closeness between observed and simulated ows was evaluated using the NashSutcliffe (NS) coefcient (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) equation, as given in equation

than zero indicates that the mean value of the observed time series would have been a better predictor than the model.

2.5. Extreme event analysis The future extreme event analysis was performed by using 27 distributions (Table 2) that can be used to t the past and future datasets. Pearsons chi-square (v2) test was used to examine the goodness of t of each distribution. Each distribution was tested for its goodness of t at a 95% condence level following the attained signicance percentage a, dened in the following equation:

P NS 1 P

QC QR2
2

Aattained 1 x2 m k r 1; q 6

QR QRmean

where QR is the observed ow and QC the computed ow, QRmean is the average observed ow over the calibration period between 1990 and 1999, and the validation period between 2000 and 2008. The range of NS lies between 1.0 (perfect t) and 1. A result lower

where m are the degrees of freedom of chi square test, k is the number of bins used in chi square test, r is numbers of parameters of the distribution and q is the Pearson parameter. The theoretical background of all the tested distributions is described in Kozanis et al. (2010).

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Fig. 7. Observed, simulated and three model average simulated ow at Dundas over the past period 19902008 (left). Simulated and three model average simulated ow at Dundas over the future period 20402069 (right). The linear regression lines indicate the trend of the average simulated ows.

Fig. 8. Difference between the past and future simulated monthly ows for Dundas as delivered by the three-hydrological model ensemble (left) and difference between the past and future IHMSHBV simulated monthly ows for Dundas (right).

3. Case study area The studied area in this work is the Spencer Creek watershed located in the Southern Ontario, Canada as shown in Fig. 1 (the grids used by the climate models in NARCCAP are also shown). It extends over an area of 160.4 km2 as estimated from a 10 m 10 m resolution digital-terrain model. The watershed area was divided into three subbasins. The most upstream subbasin includes the upper Spencer Creek tributaries above the Westover ow gauge. The next

downstream or middle watershed extends from Westover to the Highway 5 ow gauge. The most downstream subbasin extends from the Highway 5 ow gauge to the ow gauge at Dundas, which is the outlet of the case study area. The meteorological data for the case study area were obtained at two meteorological stations, Hamilton Airport and Hamilton Royal Botanical Garden (RBG). The Hamilton RBG station was discontinued in 1997, and the time series was therefore completed with data collected from the new station Hamilton RBG CS about 3 km northwest of the Hamilton

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Fig. 9. Past to future precipitation and ow differences (upper) and temperature to ow (lower) scatter plots (blue circles). Histograms (red columns) and normal distribution densities (red line) for each variable.

Table 5 Past simulated (19902008) and future (20402069) average ow (m3 s1) for the Dundas station. The change between past and future averages is also presented as a percent change. Past simulated average ow (m3 s1) Future CRCMCGCM3 Future ow (m3 s1) 1.55 1.78 Percent change (%) +15.1 HRM3HadCM3 Future ow (m3 s1) 1.58 Percent change (%) +2.0 RCM3CGCM3 Future ow (m3 s1) 1.91 Percent change (%) +23.6 RCM3GFDL Future ow (m3 s1) 1.71 Percent change (%) +10.5 All RCMs average Future average ow (m3 s1) 1.74 Percent change (%) 12.8

RBG station (Fig. 1). The data from these two stations were used for the bias correction of the RCM projections. Fig. 2 shows the observed, raw RCM and bias corrected RCM precipitation and temperature data for Hamilton Airport station between 1989 and 2000.

The Spencer Creek watershed is complex, due to its heterogeneous soil properties, extensive river network and different types of land use (HRCA, 1990). The land use of the case study areas consists of urban and paved areas (21.7%), agricultural land (46.8%),

10

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Table 6 Selected distributions tted to each dataset, attained tting performance and corresponding characteristics. Parameter Precipitation (mm/day) Dataset Observed P CRCMCGCM3 HRM3HadCM3 RCM3CGCM3 RCM3GFDL Max Temp (C) Observed Tmax CRCMCGCM3 HRM3HadCM3 RCM3CGCM3 RCM3GFDL Observed Tmin CRCMCGCM3 HRM3HadCM3 RCM3CGCM3 RCM3GFDL Flow (m3 s1) Observed Q Selected distribution EV2-Max EV1-Max (Gumbel) Log Normal EV2-Max (LMoments) EV2-Max (LMoments) Exponential Normal EV1-Max (Gumbel) EV3-Min (Weibull) LogNormal Normal (LMoments) Normal (LMoments) Gamma Exponential (LMoments) Gamma GEV-Min (kappa specied, LMoments) EV1-Max (Gumbel) Exponential (LMoments) EV2-Max (LMoments) GEV-Max (LMoments) GEV-Max (kappa specied) Attained a (%) 47.2 71.6 31.1 84.7 60.7 77.9 60.7 31.1 71.7 71.7 77.9 84.7 84.7 43.5 60.7 23.3 Data count 20 30 30 30 30 20 30 30 30 30 20 30 30 30 30 19 Mean value 39.9 67.54 46.65 72.03 68.64 27.94 30.46 31.15 30.61 31.69 15.57 12.13 10.34 13.01 12.86 15.18 Standard deviation 14.29 18.82 15.68 26.74 22.58 1.52 1.91 2.77 1.59 2.56 3.04 3.22 2.8 2.89 2.44 4.68 Skewness 2.18 0.95 1.54 1.61 1.13 0.43 0.24 0.65 0.38 0.74 0.07 0.26 0.17 0.21 0.2 0.53 Kurtosis 5.32 1.22 3.74 2.23 1.29 0.59 0.46 0.5 0.29 0.35 0.18 0.1 0.11 0.19 1.12 0.13 13.63 1.32 0.35 2.16 kappa 0.22 lambda 7.42 14.7 14.8 13.5 0.66 2.16 1.11 26.42 30.46 13.85 3.45 15.57 12.1 0.08 3.08 3.27 0.04 1.91 Psi my sy

4.02 3.79 0.33

0.25 0.24

Min Temp (C)

10.12

27.82 0.15

HBVPast CRCMCGCM3 HRM3HadCM3 RCM3CGCM3 RCM3GFDL

44.7 71.7 84.7 100 60.7

19 30 30 30 30

13.22 14.32 13.8 18.85 17.6

3.91 5.6 7.09 7.6 10.07

0.29 0.89 2.63 1.07 1.4

0.29 0.15 9.61 0.99 1.34 0.32 0.07 0.15

3.05 0.16 3.3 5.61 6.14

3.76 8.07

2.7 2.12

Table 7 Best-tting distributions estimates for 2% annual exceedance probability for each dataset and corresponding 95% upper and lower condence limits. Parameter Dataset Estimated value on 0.02 (2%) annual exceedance probability 79.5 116.3 86.5 156.9 143.6 32.4 34.4 38.3 32.8 37.3 21.8 19.9 16.9 21.5 18.4 23.8 23.4 32.6 35.9 40.6 45.6 Upper 95% condence limit value 117.5 140.2 107.5 246.0 218.0 35.7 35.6 35.3 33.1 39.2 19.4 16.8 14.5 17.1 16.4 26.9 29.6 43.0 61.9 58.3 67.7 Lower 95% condence limit value 53.5 86.2 69.4 111.5 104.1 29.6 33.2 41.8 31.8 35.4 24.2 21.0 19.5 26.6 20.4 20.8 18.2 24.0 22.9 28.8 31.1

Precipitation (mm/day)

Observed P CRCMCGCM3 HRM3HadCM3 RCM3CGCM3 RCM3GFDL Observed Tmax CRCMCGCM3 HRM3HadCM3 RCM3CGCM3 RCM3GFDL Observed Tmin CRCMCGCM3 HRM3HadCM3 RCM3CGCM3 RCM3GFDL Observed Q HBVPast CRCMCGCM3 HRM3HadCM3 RCM3CGCM3 RCM3GFDL

Max Temp (C)

Min Temp [C]

Flow (m3 s1)

forested areas (15%), wetland (14.9%), bare eld (0.7%) and water surface (0.9%). The watershed is characterized by relatively at topography, except for local glacial features, with elevations ranging between 100 m and 340 m. The length of the main river network of all tributaries is approximately 100 km, while the longest ow path is about 35 km. Precipitation is fairly uniformly

distributed throughout the year, and snow cover is characteristic between December and March typically causing spring snow-melt high ows. Rainfall and temperature data from Hamilton RBG and Hamilton Airport and three streamow gauging station data from Westover, Highway 5, and Dundas between 1989 and 2008 were used as input for the three hydrological models. The evapotranspi-

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

11

ration was estimated using the BlaneyCriddle method (Allen and Pruitt, 1986). Calibration and validation were carried out in daily time steps for all models using hydrographs at the outlet of each of the three subbasins. The optimization of model parameters was carried out manually for IHMSHBV and HEC-HMS models, while for SAC-SMA models parameters a genetic algorithm optimization was used. Genetic algorithms are globally oriented in searching and thus, potentially useful in solving optimization problems in which the objective function responses contain multiple optima and other irregularities (Wang, 1998). The available data were split into two periods, 1/1/198931/12/1999 for calibration, and 1/1/200031/12/2008 for validation. The rst year of calibration 1/1/198931/12/1989, was used to initialize all models. While the hydrological modeling of Spencer Creek watershed was performed in a three subbasin setup for all hydrological models, the analysis of the past and future ows was carried out only at the Dundas gauge. A two-ensemble prediction system was used to evaluate the future climate change impact on Spencer Creek hydrology. The four NARCCAP regional climate models (RCMs), CRCMCGCM3, HRM3HadCM3, RCM3CGCM3 and RCM3GFDL, provided the climate variables for the contemporary period between 19892000 and future period 20402069. The future climate experiments used cover a wide range of future anomalies in the climate variables. The climate variables were studied both individually and in an equally weighted ensemble of all RCMs. The future change in the interannual and seasonal runoff of Spencer Creek was studied using the four RCM data between 2040 and 2069 in three widely used, semi distributed hydrological models. The IHMSHBV, HECHMS and SAC-SMA models were calibrated separately for the observed climate variables using the observed runoff. An equally weighted ensemble of the future ow results was used then for the analysis of the seasonal and interannual changes in the future ow regime. In the extreme event frequency analysis, only IHMS HBV which is the best tting hydrological model was used.

4. Results 4.1. Climate variables interannual and average monthly trends Observations over a twenty year period of data from the two reference stations of Hamilton RBG and Hamilton Airport stations were analyzed to show the interannual trend of precipitation and temperature. The analysis was also extended to the future projections of the climate model variables. The analysis was performed applying linear regression to the average annual precipitation and temperature data, respectively. The aim of the trend analysis was to detect any existing persistent interannual change in the climate variables. There was a clear indication that both precipitation and temperature exhibited a slight to moderate increase in the past two decades data, but also in the future simulations of the climate models (Fig. 3). Amongst the analyzed data, only Hamilton RBG station precipitation records exhibited a slight negative trend. This probably is attributed to the change in the location of the Hamilton gauge made in 1997, where Hamilton RBG station was discontinued and the time series continued at a new station Hamilton RBG CS, about 3 km northwest. The results of the trend analysis show that the change rate in average precipitation was estimated at 0.73 mm/year and 3.54 mm/year in observed precipitation data, while for the future RCM ensemble, it was estimated to be 2.81 mm/year and 3.80 mm/year for Hamilton RBG and Hamilton Airport, respectively. The respective estimated temperature increase rate was 0.014 C/year and 0.041 C/year for the observed data, while for the future RCM ensemble the rate was estimated at 0.052 C/year and 0.061 C/year for Hamilton RBG and Hamilton

Airport, respectively. The trends estimated for the observed data from the Hamilton Airport station can be considered more reliable, due to its data consistency, compared to Hamilton RBG data that were collected at two locations. The change rates are more pronounced in future projections than these in the past two decades. The change between the past and the future datasets was also estimated for the two climate variables. The interannual mean precipitation and temperature for the past and future datasets are presented in Table 3. It is worth mentioning that all RCM future projections exhibit an increase in both precipitation and temperature average compared to past climate data. The RCM ensemble change was +16.3% and +11.9% for precipitation and +2.3 C and +2.2 C for Hamilton RBG and Hamilton Airport, respectively. For annual precipitation the changes are translated in 836 mm to 971 mm and 891 mm to 996 mm for the above stations. RCM3 GFDL model provided the most conservative projection in terms of future temperature increase (+1.9 C). This model also projected the most conservative Hamilton Airport precipitation increase (+8.4%), while HRM3HadCM3 model projected the most conservative precipitation increase for Hamilton RBG station (+12.4%). The greatest changes in precipitation were projected by RCM3 CGCM3 at +19.5% and +16.7% for Hamilton RBG and Hamilton Airport, respectively, while for temperature, the most signicant changes were projected by CRCMCGCM3 at +2.7 C and +2.7 C, respectively. Taking into account the future projected increases in both precipitation and temperature, an average monthly analysis was performed to obtain insight into how the changes are distributed seasonally. It was found that temperature variability in future projections is greater in January (+3.42 C, +3.72 C), February (+2.64 C, +2.74 C), May (+2.75 C, +2.62 C), June (+2.69 C, +2.51 C), July (+2.48 C, +2.02 C) and December (+2.35 C, +2.25 C) for the average of all RCM projections (see Fig. 4). The values in parentheses indicate the temperature change for Hamilton RBG and Hamilton Airport stations, respectively. Only the CRCMCGCM3 spring temperature projection diverges signicantly from the other RCMs (Fig. 4). Conversely, precipitation projections between all RCMs do not produce a clear signal of monthly distribution change in the precipitation regime. The ensemble future RCM projection shows the higher increase of precipitation in January with 0.99 mm and 0.88 mm increase on Hamilton RBG and Hamilton Airport stations, respectively, and the lower increase in February, July, November and December months. 4.2. Hydrological models calibration results The three hydrological models were successfully calibrated using a 10-year period of observed data. The calibrated models were then tested for their efciency over a separate 10-year period. The NashSutcliffe estimator results are presented for the calibration, validation period, and for the whole past period 1/1/199031/ 12/2008 in Table 4. The IHMSHBV model performed very well according to NashSutcliffe (NS) criterion over the calibration (NS = 0.74) and validation (NS = 0.75) period, while for HEC-HMS (calibration NS = 0.63, validation NS = 0.48) and SAC-SMA (calibration NS = 0.56, validation NS = 0.66) models the results were moderate. Fig. 5 demonstrates the observed ow and the ow from the three hydrological models simulations from September 2004 to August 2005 in daily-time steps. Analyzing the results of the hydrological models on an average monthly basis, it was found that HBV model represents the monthly ow dynamics moderately good in terms of coefcient of determination R2 = 0.98. However, the HEC-HMS and SAC-SMA hydrological models hinge on their performance in the high ow months (Fig. 6). Notwithstanding the inherent uncertainty due to moderate HEC-HMS and SACSMA models performance, the comparison between the past and

12

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

Fig. 10. Frequency curves for the observed and the projected precipitation of each climate model, for the maximum daily precipitation, including 95% condence limits.

the future simulated ows of these models provides valuable information about the climate change effect on future hydrology of Spencer Creek. 4.3. Interannual and seasonal ow trends As shown in Section 4.1 and Fig. 3, precipitation exhibits a positive trend both in observed and future projected data for the two analyzed stations. As expected, the positive trend in the precipitation is also depicted in the past and future simulated ows. The positive trend on the past ow was estimated over the equally weighted ensemble of past simulated ows using linear regression. The positive increase in Dundas average annual surface ow was estimated at 0.0046 m3 s1 per year for the period 19902008. The corresponding annual increase estimated from the equally weighted ensemble of all future simulations was 0.0121 m3 s1 per year (Fig. 7). Following the respective precipitation trend results, the increase in ow is more pronounced in the future. The average past simulated ow was 1.55 m3 s1. The projected change in the future was estimated from 2% (HRM3HadCM3) to 23.6%

(RCM3CGCM3) between the RCM projections with an average of 12.8% (Table 5). The increase in future precipitation and temperature is not uniform through the year. The winter and the later springearly summer months have the greater future temperature change. The future precipitation also increases in a non-uniform pattern through the year. Thus, the seasonal effect of precipitation and temperature increase for the resultant future ow is complex. A comparison between equally weighted ensembles of simulated ows in the past and future periods, reveal an increase in autumn and winter ows, particularly the August to February monthly ow increases, with a maximum in January and February, where the change is 0.71 m3 s1 and 0.63 m3 s1 (or 32.5% and 33.5%), respectively (Fig. 8a). Fig. 8a presents the difference between the past and future simulated monthly ows as delivered by the three-hydrological model ensemble. The January ow increase could be attributed to the high precipitation increase in that month, as shown in Section 4.1. In contrast, the similar ow increase in February cannot be attributed to the same reason as January, because there is no

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

13

Fig. 11. Frequency curves for the observed and projected maximum daily temperature of each climate model, including 95% condence limits.

change in future February precipitation. However, it can be attributed to change in the future January and February months temperature. The warmer February temperature from 2.5 C to 3 C in the future decreases the snow fraction and increases the winter snowmelt. As a result, the snowpack decreases for the annual basis and snowmelt terminates earlier in the spring. In their study, Boyer et al. (2010) presented similar changes in future winter and spring ow regime of St. Lawrence River tributaries, about 650 km northeast of Spencer Creek. The earlier starting snowmelt explains the decrease by 14% in April ow, because of the thinner snowpack left to be melted in April (Fig. 8a), despite the slight increase in the precipitation of April. The results from the best-tting model, IHMSHBV indicate a larger decrease (20.5%) in April ow which is shown in Fig. 8b. Also it is shown that there is no signicant change in the future-ow simulations in months May and August. In order to quantify the effect of precipitation and temperature variability on future ow change, two periods of equal length, one in the past and one in the future were considered. For the past period, the annual observed precipitation and temperature for the entire basin, and the simulated ensemble ow was used between

1990 and 2008. For the same length period of 20502068, the projected precipitation and temperature of each climate model and the ensemble ow of all hydrologic models for the individual climate models were considered. The difference between the future and the past precipitation, temperature and ow data for the four RCMs were then tted to normal distributions to calculate the mean of each variable difference (Fig. 9). From the produced plots, the average effect of each climate variable on ow was estimated. The results show that the mean increase (DP%) of 18% in precipitation and the mean increase in temperature (DT C) by 2.5 C will lead to a proportional mean 20% increase in the ow (DQ) at Dundas. 4.4. Climate variables and ow extremes Extreme event analysis for future climate variables and future assessed ows is a rather daunting task due to a number of uncertainty sources that should be considered. The largest source of uncertainty in this study is the limited available data in past and future periods. Thus, the projections of extreme events were limited to a 0.02 (2%) annual exceedance probability (AEP). The cli-

14

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

mate models predictions induce another main source of uncertainty that should be considered. Even though climate models simulate the integrated accumulations of precipitation well, they underestimate the intensity of the precipitation events and overestimate the number of rainy days, comparing to the observed precipitation (Stephens et al., 2010). Moreover, the uncertainty induced of hydrological models estimations and possible future land-use changes are also sources of uncertainty for the future maximum ow estimation. Uncertainty in extreme event analysis is also affected by the tting distribution selected to project the extreme events to various AEPs. To address the climate models induced uncertainty of future extremes, multiple climate-model projections were used to produce a range of possible future extremes. Twenty-seven distributions (Table 2) were tested on each past and future dataset. Pearsons chi-square (v2) test was used to examine the goodness of t of each distribution. Amongst the distributions that are accepted for a signicance level of 95% for each

dataset, the best-tting distribution was selected following the attained signicance percentage a (Eq. (7)). The distribution used in each dataset and the estimated parameters are presented in Table 6. An analysis of the AEP and the recurrence interval of daily precipitation, minimum and maximum temperature, and ow was carried out for the observed and the future projected datasets by each RCM. The N-year recurrence interval is dened as the daily precipitation amount, which is equaled or exceeded once every N years on average (Semmler and Jacob, 2004). The AEP is then dened as the 1/N-year recurrence interval and describes the probability of the specic event to occur in a year. The annual maximum daily precipitation, minimum and maximum temperature and ow for the entire basin were used. The AEP of 2% (or 50-year recurrence interval) values and the 95% upper and lower condence limits are summarized in Table 7 for all the analyzed parameters. Regarding precipitation, all future projections show an increase in the AEP for a given daily precipitation. The degree of the increase

Fig. 12. Frequency curves for the observed and projected minimum daily temperature of each climate model, including 95% condence limits.

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

15

Fig. 13. Frequency curves for observed, past and future HBV simulated ow of each climate model, for the maximum daily values, including 95% condence limits.

16

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

differs between the future projections (Fig. 10). The comparison between the different projections and the past data was conducted for the AEP = 0.02 (50-year recurrence interval). The observed maximum daily precipitation for an AEP = 0.02 was estimated to be 79.5 mm with 95% upper and lower condence limits of 117.5 mm and 53.5 mm, respectively (Fig. 10). The HRM3HadCM3 model projection provides the most conservative estimates, with 86.5 mm for the AEP = 0.02 precipitation and 107.5 mm and 69.4 mm 95% upper and lower condence limits, respectively. The CRCMCGCM3 model resulted moderate change in precipitation, with an AEP = 0.02 precipitation of 116.3 mm, and 140.2 mm and 86.2 mm upper and lower condence limits, respectively (Fig. 10). Higher changes were obtained by RCM3 CGCM3 and RCM3-GFDL models with 156.9 mm (95% condence limits 246 mm and 111.5 mm) and 143.6 mm (95% condence limits 218 mm and 104.1 mm) precipitation of AEP = 0.02, respectively (Fig. 10). It can be noticed that higher changes in precipitation ex-

tremes were associated with the RCM3CGCM3 and RCM3-GFDL model predictions that use the same RCM (RCM3). For the past maximum daily average temperature with AEP = 0.02, the maximum temperature is 32.4 C with 35.7 C and 29.6 C the 95% upper and lower condence limits, respectively (Fig. 11). The past minimum temperature of 0.02 AEP was 21.8 C with 19.4 C and 24.2 C 95% upper and lower condence limits, respectively (Fig. 12). The HRM3HadCM3 delivered the higher increase in both future minimum and maximum temperatures of 16.9 C (95% condence limits 14.5 C and 19.5 C) and 38.3 C (95% condence limits 35.3 C and 41.8 C), respectively. The RCM3GFDL model predicted moderate changes, with minimum 18.4 C (95% condence limits 16.4 C and 20.4 C) and maximum temperature 37.3 C (95% condence limits of 39.2 C and 35.4 C). The most conservative predictions were associated with the CRCMCGCM3 and RCM3CGCM3 models. The former predicts minimum and maximum temperatures of 19.9 C

Fig. 14. Estimated values at 0.02 (2%) annual exceedance probability (50 yr recurrence interval) of observed and model projected max precipitation, max and min temperature and max ow with corresponding upper and lower 95% condence limits.

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

17

Fig. 15. Standardized Precipitation Index of 48 months for observed and future monthly precipitation.

Table 8 48 month SPI for past (Past) and projected (Proj) precipitation for each model, models average (AvgCM), and the % difference (% diff) of projections. SPI category Past CRCMCGCM3 Proj 2 or more 1.51.99 11.49 00.99 0 to 0.99 1 to 1.49 1.5 to 1.99 2 or less 0.0 5.7 14.0 34.7 20.7 18.1 6.7 0.0 0.3 5.1 11.8 34.2 32.3 7.0 7.3 1.9 %diff 0.3 0.6 2.2 0.5 11.5 11.1 0.6 1.9 HRM3HadCM3 Proj 0.0 2.6 14.1 40.9 19.8 12.1 8.6 1.9 %diff 0.0 3.1 0.1 6.2 0.9 6.0 1.9 1.9 RCM3CGCM3 Proj 1.6 8.6 8.3 31.6 28.8 17.6 3.5 0.0 %diff 1.6 2.9 5.7 3.1 8.0 0.6 3.2 0.0 RCM3GFDL Proj 2.6 2.9 6.7 41.9 31.9 3.2 5.8 5.1 %diff 2.6 2.8 7.3 7.1 11.2 14.9 1.0 5.1 AvgCM Proj 1.1 4.8 10.2 37.1 28.2 10.0 6.3 2.2 %diff 1.1 0.9 3.8 2.4 7.5 8.2 0.4 2.2

(95% condence limits 16.8 C and 21.0 C) and 34.4 C (95% condence limits 35.6 C and 33.2 C), respectively. The latter model predicted minimum and maximum temperatures of 21.5 C (95% condence limits of 17.1 C and 26.6 C) and 32.8 C (95% condence limits of 33.1 C and 31.8 C), respectively. The CRCMCGCM3 and RCM3CGCM3 models, which resulted in the most conservative predictions, used the same GCM (CGCM3). Figs. 11 and 12 demonstrate the maximum and minimum temperature frequency curves, respectively, for the four model projections. The frequency analysis was also extended to the past and future ows. The future ows were taken only for IHMSHBV model which captured the high-ow season very well. For January to April, the average difference between the observed ow in Dundas and the simulated by IHMSHBV ow was 9.2% (Fig. 6). The respective difference for HEC-HMS and SAC-SMA was 35.4% and 35.8%. The results of the frequency analysis demonstrate that future ow maxima also increase when compared to both observed and past simulated ows. For the 0.02 AEP, the future projections of HRM3HadCM3 and CRCMCGCM3 show an increase in maximum ow to 35.9 m3 s1 (95% condence limits of 61.9 m3 s1 and 22.9 m3 s1) and 32.6 m3 s1 (95% condence limits of 43.0 m3 s1 and 24.0 m3 s1), respectively, compared to the observed 23.8 m3 s1 (95% condence limits of 26.9 m3 s1 and 20.8 m3 s1) and simulated 23.4 m3 s1 (95% condence limits of 29.6 m3 s1 and 18.2 m3 s1) maximum ows (Fig. 13). RCM3CGCM3 and RCM3GFDL predict more significant changes to 40.6 m3 s1 (95% condence limits of 58.3 m3 s1 and 28.8 m3 s1) and 45.6 m3 s1 (95% condence limits of 67.7 m3 s1 and 31.1 m3 s1), respectively (Fig. 13). The RCM3 CGCM3 and RCM3-GFDL models that projected the more signicant changes in ow of AEP = 0.02 use the same RCM (RCM3). In Fig. 14, the 2% AEP projection of each variable and the 95% condence limits are provided.

In order to examine the potential future extremes from a different viewpoint than the frequency analysis, the SPI index was estimated for the observed and the future projected precipitation. The SPI index allows the comparison of dry and wet periods between the past and the future at different temporal scales. In order to focus on the long-term extremes, the SPI of 48 months was selected for analysis. The SPI of 48 months was produced from each projection and compared to the SPI time series produced from the observed precipitation (Fig. 15). The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 8 according to the index categories of Table 1. In the past precipitation SPI of 48 months, there are no periods ranked as extremely dry or extremely wet. This is rather expected given the short record length. In future projections, moderately and severely wet and dry conditions were reduced by 13.2% of the time on average (Table 8). This reduction caused an increase in mildly wet or dry conditions, but most importantly, it increased the extremely dry and extremely wet conditions to 3.3% of the time.

5. Conclusions The results obtained from the present study under the A2 SRES gas-emission scenario (Nakicenvoic et al., 2000) indicate that modest changes are expected in Spencer Creek hydrology. The most important hydrology drivers, precipitation and temperature, were analyzed and found to incorporate important interannual trends, both in past data and future projections. The CRCMCGCM3, RCM3CGCM3, RCM3GFDL and HRM3HadCM3 climate-model projections agree on increase of precipitation by 16.3% and 11.9% and temperature by +2.3 C and +2.2 C for the Hamilton RBG and Airport stations, respectively. In addition to the average annual

18

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119

increases, changes were also predicted for the seasonal distribution of the variables. All climate models had similar increases of future temperature for the months of December, January, May, June and July, by more than 2 C. The future precipitation projections do not exhibit clear seasonal trend, but the RCM average shows January to be the month with the higher increase (0.99 mm and 0.88 mm for Hamilton RBG and Hamilton Airport stations, respectively), while February, July, November and December months show no change. Additionally, important changes were found in the 2% AEP (50-year recurrence interval) of annual maximum daily precipitation, where they were found to range from 8.8% to 97.4% higher for future projections. The 48-month SPI analysis also shows that there is an increase in extreme wet and dry conditions according to the SPI ranking. Important changes are also expected in minimum and maximum temperature AEPs. Common feature in both minimum and maximum temperature change is the positive change in the 2% AEP comparing to the past curves. The increase in 2% AEP for the maximum temperature was 0.44.9 C, while the increase for the minimum temperature was 0.3 C to 4.9 C. The above values correspond to the 2% AEP of the tted distributions and do not include the uncertainty range, based on 95% condence intervals. Three hydrological models were calibrated and validated using a twenty-year period of observed data. The IHMSHBV outperforms in comparison to the HEC-HMS and SAC-SMA models in terms of NashSutcliffe performance. The latter two models do not perform well in simulating the high-ow seasons. Thus, all three models were used for the average annual ow change analysis of Dundas, but only IHMSHBV for the ow recurrence interval analysis. An 18% increase in future precipitation and 2.5 C increase in future temperature, results in a 20% increase on the average annual future ow at Dundas. The frequency analysis of maximum daily streamow (Q), show an increase of 3791.6% in the 2% AEP ow comparing to the respective ow derived from the observed data (Table 7). As shown in this study, the quantitative impact of these changes in basic hydrometeorologic characteristics can be substantial at small watershed scale. The national policies on resources management, such as for oods and droughts, provide a specic framework of objectives, principals, denitions and measures to adopt for assessing the potential impacts of climate change on water resources. This framework enables decision-makers to develop and constantly review ood risk and drought management plans. The ensemble results from multi-hydrological models forced under multi-climate models results give a collective picture of probable hydrological trends and embedded uncertainties in interpretations. Generally, the study presents a wide range of predicted changes in the hydrologic processes, basic meteorological characteristics and embedded uncertainty, clearly highlighting the advantage of multi-models approach in assessing climate-change impacts at catchment scale. Quantitative results of hydrological change provide the data required to improve knowledge and adaptation policy to water-resources management. Thus, despite the limitations and uncertainty in projections, long-term strategic planning should consider the potential climate-change impacts in such a complex watershed. Acknowledgements The Environment Canada and Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) are gratefully acknowledged for making available the precipitation, temperature and discharge data in the study area. Mills Library at McMaster University provided the geographic and landuse data. The authors are grateful to Dr. P. Coulibaly, Associate Professor at McMaster University and the members of his research

group, Mrs. Z. Sultana and Dr. J. Samuel, for their assistance in bias correcting the NARCCAP daily precipitation and temperature data. The National Center of Atmospheric Research (NCAR, http://ncar.ucar.edu/) is thankfully acknowledged for providing online the NARCCAP regional climate change data. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the reviewers Dr. Robert Jarrett and Emeritus Professor Jetse Kalma for their comments that helped to improve the manuscript.

References
Allen, R.G., Pruitt, W.O., 1986. Rational use of the FAO BlaneyCriddle formula. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 112 (2), (1986) 139155. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1986)112:2(139. Beniston, M., Stephenson, D.B., Christensen, O.B., Ferro, C.A.T., Frei, C., Goyette, S., Halsnaes, K., Holt, T., Jylha, K., Kof, B., Palutikof, J., Scholl, R., Semmler, T., Woth, K., 2007. Future extreme events in European climate: an exploration of regional climate model projections. Climatic Change 81, 7195. Bergstrm, S., 1995. The HBV model. In: Singh, V.P. (Ed.), Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, USA. ISBN: 0-918334-91-8. Bergstrm, S., Carlsson, B., Grahn, G., Johansson, B., 1997. A More Consistent Approach to Catchment Response in the HBV Model. Vannet i Norden, No. 4. Boyer, C., Chaumont, D., Chartier, I., Roy, A.G., 2010. Impact of climate change on the hydrology of St. Lawrence tributaries. Journal of Hydrology 384, 6583. Burnash, R.J.C., 1995. The NWS river forecast system-catchment modeling. In: Singh, V.P. (Ed.), Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, pp. 311366. Burnash, R.J.C., Ferral, R.L., McGuire, R.A., 1973. A Generalized Streamow Simulation System-Conceptual Modeling for Digital Computers. US Department of Commerce, National Weather Service and State of California, Dept. of Water Resources, pp. 204. Christensen, J.H., Christensen, O.B., 2003. Climate modelling: severe summertime ooding in Europe. Nature 421, 805806. doi:10.1038/421805. Coulibaly, P., 2009. Multi-model approach to hydrologic impact of climate change. From Headwaters to the Ocean. CRC Press, pp. 249255. doi:10.1201/ 9780203882849.ch37. Dibike, Y.B., Coulibaly, P., 2005. Hydrologic impact of climate change in the Saguenay watershed: comparison of downscaling methods and hydrologic models. Journal of Hydrology 307 (14), 145163. Dibike, Y.B., Coulibaly, P., 2007. Validation of hydrological models for climate scenario simulation: the case of Saguenay watershed in Quebec. Hydrological Processes 21, 31233135. Easterling, D.R., Meehl, G.A., Parmesan, C., Changnon, S.A., Karl, T.R., Mearns, L.O., 2000. Climate extremes: observations, modeling, and impacts. Science 289, 20682074. Flato, G.M., 2005. The Third Generation Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM3). <http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/models/cgcm3.shtml>. Forbes, K.A., Kienzle, S.W., Coburn, C.A., Byrne, J.M., Rasmussen, J., 2010. Simulating the hydrological response to predicted climate change on a watershed in southern Alberta, Canada, Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9890-x. GFDL GAMDT (The GFDL Global Model Development Team), 2004. The new GFDL global atmospheric and land model AM2-LM2: Evaluation with prescribed SST simulations. Journal of Climate 17, 46414673. Gordon, C., Cooper, C., Senior, C.A., Banks, H., Gregory, J.M., Johns, T.C., Mitchell, J.F.B., Wood, R.A., 2000. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without ux adjustments. Climate Dynamics 16, 147168. HEC-HMS Users Manual, 2009. US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. Heim Jr., R.R., 2000. Drought indices: a review. In: Wilhite, Donald A. (Ed.), Drought: A Global Assessment. Routledge Hazards and Disasters Series, vol. 1. Routledge, London, pp. 159167 (Chapter 11). HRCA, 1990. Hamilton Region Conservation Authority-MacLaren Plansearch Lavalin, vol. 1Technical Report. Canada/Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program. Ines, A.V.M., Hansen, J.W., 2006. Bias correction of daily GCM rainfall for crop simulation studies. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 138, 4453. IPCC SRES, 2000. Special Report on Emission Scenarios, A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Nakicenovic, Nebojsa, Swart, Rob (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, pp. 27. <http:// www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/spmpdf/sres-e.pdf> (accessed 15.06.11). Kerkhoven, E., Gan, T.Y., 2011. Unconditional uncertainties of historical and simulated river ows subjected to climate change. Journal of Hydrology 396 (12), 113127. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.10.042. Khan, M.S., Coulibaly, P., 2010. Assessing hydrologic impact of climate change with uncertainty estimates: bayesian neural network approach. Journal of Hydrometeorology 11, 482495. doi:10.1175/2009JHM1160.1. Koutroulis, A.G., Vrohidou, A.E.K., Tsanis, I.K., 2010. Spatiotemporal characteristics of meteorological drought for the island of Crete. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 2010. doi:10.1175/2010JHM1252.1. Kozanis, S., Christodes, A., Efstratiadis, A., 2010. Scientic Documentation of the Hydrognomon Software Version 4, Athens, pp. 173 (in Greek).

M.G. Grillakis et al. / Journal of Hydrology 409 (2011) 119 Kundzewicz, Z.W., Graczyk, D., Maurer, T., Pinskwar, I., Radziejewski, M., Svensson, C., Szwed, M., 2005. Trend detection in river ow series: 1. Annual maximum ow. Hydrological Sciences Journal 50 (5), 797810. Kundzewicz, Z.W., Radziejewski, M., Pinskwar, I., 2006. Precipitation extremes in the changing climate of Europe. Climate Research 31, 5158. Lawrence, D.M., Slater, A.G., 2010. The contribution of snow condition trends to future ground Climate. Climate Dynamics 34, 969981. doi:10.1007/s00382009-0537-4. Leander, R., Buishand, A.T., 2007. Resampling of regional climate model output for the simulation of extreme river ows. Journal of Hydrology 332, 487496. Leavesley, G.H., 1994. Modeling the effects of climate change on water resources A Review. Climatic Change 28, 159177. Lindstrm, G., Johansson, B., Persson, M., Gardelin, M., Bergstrm, S., 1997. Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model. Journal of Hydrology 201, 272288. Loukas, A., Vasiliades, L., Dalezios, N.R., 2002. Potential climate change impacts on ood producing mechanisms in southern British Columbia, Canada using the CGCMA1 simulation results. Journal of Hydrology 259 (14), 163188. McKee, T.B., Doesken, N.J., Kliest, J., 1993. The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Applied Climatology, 1722 January, Anaheim, CA. American Meterological Society, Boston, MA. pp. 179184. Middelkoop, H., Daamen, K., Gellens, D., Grabs, W., Kwadijk, J.C.J., Lang, H., Parmet, B. W.A.H., Schdler, B., Schulla, J., Wilke, K., 2001. Impact of climate change on hydrological regimes and water resources management in the Rhine basin. Climatic Change 49, 105128. Minville, M., Brissette, F., Leconte, R., 2008. Uncertainty of the impact of climate change on the hydrology of a nordic watershed. Journal of Hydrology 358 (12), 7083. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.033. Nakicenvoic, N., Davidson, O., Davis, G., Grbler, A., Kram, T., Rovere, E., Metz, M., Morita, T., Pepper, W., Pitcher, H., Sankovski, A., Shukla, P., Swart, R., Watson, R., Dadi, Z., 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 599 pp. Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River ow forecasting through conceptual models. Journal of Hydrology 10, 282290.

19

Ozkul, S., 2009. Assessment of climate change effects in Aegean river basins: the case of Gediz and Buyuk Menderes Basins. Climatic Change 97, 253283. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9589-. Pope, V.D., Gallani, M.L., Rowntree, P.R., Stratton, R.A., 2000. The impact of new physical parameterizations in the Hadley Centre climate modelHadAM3. Climate Dynamics 16, 123146. doi:10.1007/s003820050009. Rao, A.R., Hamed, K.H., 2000. Flood Frequency Analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p. 376. Semmler, T., Jacob, D., 2004. Modeling extreme precipitation events a climate change simulation for Europe Global and Planetary Change 44, 119127. Sharma, M., Coulibaly, P., Dibike, Y., 2011. Assessing the need for downscaling RCM data for hydrologic impact study. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 16 (6), 534539. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000349. SMHI, 2006. Integrated Hydrological Modelling System. Manual Version 5.10. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Stephens, G.L., LEcuyer, T., Forbes, R., Gettlemen, A., Golaz, J.-C., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Suzuki, K., Gabriel, P., Haynes, J., 2010. Dreary state of precipitation in global models. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, D24211. doi:10.1029/ 2010JD014532. Sultana, Z., Coulibaly, P., 2010. Distributed modeling of future changes in hydrological processes of Spencer Creek watershed. Hydrological Processes 8 (25), 12541270. doi:10.1002/hyp.7891. Tsanis, I.K., Koutroulis, A.G., Daliakopoulos, N.I., Jacob, D., 2011. Severe climateinduced water shortage and extremes in Crete: A letter. Climatic Change 106 (4), 667677. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0048-2. Wang, Q.J., 1998. Using genetic algorithms to optimize model parameters. Environmental Modelling & Software 1 (25), 2734. Whiteld, P.H., Wang, J.Y., Cannon, A.J., 2003. Modeling future streamow extremes-oods and low ows in Georgia Basin, British Columbia. Canadian Water Resources Journal 28, 633656. Wilks, D.S., 1995. Statistical Methods in Atmospheric Sciences. Academic Press, New York. Zhang, T., 2005. Inuence of the seasonal snow cover on the ground thermal regime: an overview. Reviews of Geophysics 43, 123. doi:10.1029/ 2004RG000157.