<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-22-2285-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Examining controls on peak annual streamflow and floods <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> in the Fraser River Basin of British Columbia</article-title><alt-title>Examining controls on peak annual streamflow and floods (Fraser River Basin)</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Examining controls on peak annual streamflow and floods (Fraser River Basin)}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{C.~L.~Curry and F.~W.~Zwiers}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Curry</surname><given-names>Charles L.</given-names></name>
          <email>cc@uvic.ca</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zwiers</surname><given-names>Francis W.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, V8N 5L3, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, V8N 5L3, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Charles L. Curry (cc@uvic.ca)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>16</day><month>April</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>2285</fpage><lpage>2309</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>26</day><month>August</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>8</day><month>September</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>19</day><month>February</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>14</day><month>March</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2018 Charles L. Curry</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2018</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e97">The Fraser River Basin (FRB) of British Columbia is one of the largest and
most important watersheds in western North America, and home to a rich
diversity of biological species and economic assets that depend implicitly
upon its extensive riverine habitats. The hydrology of the FRB is dominated
by snow accumulation and melt processes, leading to a prominent annual peak
streamflow invariably occurring in May–July. Nevertheless, while annual peak
daily streamflow (APF) during the spring freshet in the FRB is historically
well correlated with basin-averaged, 1 April snow water equivalent (SWE),
there are numerous occurrences of anomalously large APF in below- or
near-normal SWE years, some of which have resulted in damaging floods in the
region. An imperfect understanding of which other climatic factors contribute
to these anomalously large APFs hinders robust projections of their magnitude
and frequency.</p>
    <p id="d1e100">We employ the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) process-based hydrological
model driven by gridded observations to investigate the key controlling
factors of anomalous APF events in the FRB and four of its subbasins that
contribute nearly 70 % of the annual flow at Fraser-Hope. The relative
influence of a set of predictors characterizing the interannual variability
of rainfall, snowfall, snowpack (characterized by the annual maximum value,
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), soil moisture and temperature on simulated APF at Hope
(the main outlet of the FRB) and at the subbasin outlets is examined within a
regression framework. The influence of large-scale climate modes of
variability (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the
El Niño–Southern Oscillation – ENSO) on APF magnitude is also assessed,
and placed in context with these more localized controls. The results
indicate that next to SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (univariate Spearman correlation
with APF of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.64; 0.70 (observations; VIC simulation)),
the snowmelt rate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.43 in VIC), the ENSO and PDO indices
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.40; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.41) and (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.35;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.38), respectively, and rate of warming subsequent to the date of
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.26; 0.38), are the most influential
predictors of APF magnitude in the FRB and its subbasins. The identification
of these controls on annual peak flows in the region may be of use in
understanding seasonal predictions or future projected streamflow changes.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <label>1.1</label><title>Study domain and motivation</title>
      <p id="d1e261">The response of nival watersheds across the Northern Hemisphere to ongoing
warming of the climate system is a topic of intense interest to those
interested in the water–climate nexus. Since the early reviews of Barnett et
al. (2005) and Milly et al. (2005), which offered a global perspective, more
recent studies have investigated the response on continental and regional
scales. In mountainous regions that supply fresh water to downstream
populated areas, reduced snowpack in recent decades has led to concerns about
water availability for human consumption, agriculture and fisheries (Stewart,
2009; Jiménez Cisneros et al., 2014), while changes in the timing of the
freshet and a widespread decrease in the snow-to-rain ratio (Danco et al.,
2016) have implications for flood magnitude and frequency (Matti et al.,
2016). An understanding of the mechanisms behind these changes has been
greatly aided by the use of process-based hydrologic models (Park and Markus,
2014; Duan et al., 2017), which permit<?pagebreak page2286?> the analysis of a host of variables
that respond to historical climate forcings via physically consistent
relationships. We apply such a model to the Fraser River Basin (FRB) of
British Columbia (BC), Canada, a large, representative nival watershed, to
study the dominant climatic controls on both observed and modelled hydrologic
change.</p>
      <p id="d1e264">The FRB is one of the largest watersheds draining the western slopes of the
North American Cordillera, and home to both densely populated urban centres
and a diversity of ecosystems closely linked to the economic prosperity of
the region (Fraser Basin Council, 2010). The basin is also a focal point for
salmon migration and spawning, constituting a key component of the highly
valued commercial and subsistence fisheries of the region. The FRB lies
between the Coast Mountains and the Continental Divide, with the headwaters
of the Fraser in the northeast (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 53<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 118<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) and
its outlet at the Pacific Ocean in the southwest (Fig. 1). Its vast
240 000 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> area encompasses a range of climatic zones, from the snowy
mountains of the eastern Rockies to dry interior plateaus and wet fertile
valleys nearest the Pacific west coast. The hydrological diversity of the
basin is well described in Eaton and Moore (2010), who reviewed seasonal
streamflow regimes at the catchment scale across BC, and also in
Moore (1991), who focused specifically on the FRB. For the most part,
streamflows are unregulated in the FRB, with the exception of Kenney Dam on
the Nechako River in the northwestern sector of the FRB (operational since
the early 1950s) and several dams associated with the Bridge River power
project in the Interior Plateau (completed in 1960). Regulated subbasins
represent less than 10 % of the total area of the FRB (Bawden et al.,
2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e301">Streamflow in the interior catchments of the FRB is dominated by the
snowmelt-fed spring freshet in April–July, leading to the usual
characterization of the FRB as a nival basin. Hydrographs of major rivers in
the FRB do not vary their form significantly from year to year due to the
large amount of storage in the multi-year, high-elevation snowpack. Indeed,
the longest record of gauged flow at the southwestern outlet of the basin, at
Fraser-Hope, has never recorded an annual peak daily flow (APF) outside of
the April–July period. Nevertheless, several catchments in the lower FRB,
and to the west of the basin in the Coast Mountains and Western Cascades,
exhibit annual streamflow peaks coinciding with the maximum of Pacific
frontal rainstorm occurrence in October–December (Eaton and Moore, 2010;
Padilla et al., 2015).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e307">The Fraser River Basin of British Columbia, Canada, and four of its
subbasins examined in this study. Colours correspond to elevations as used by
the VIC model, at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> horizontal resolution. Locations of
streamflow gauge stations at the outlet to each subbasin are shown with black
dots, while the major outlet for the FRB at Hope is shown with a red dot.
Details of each subbasin are provided in Table 1.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f01.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <label>1.2</label><title>Previous studies of climate and streamflow change in the FRB</title>
      <?pagebreak page2287?><p id="d1e344">The focus of this work is upon the main drivers of the interannual (and to
some extent, interdecadal) variability in annual peak daily flow (hereafter
APF), and not upon secular trends in APF in the FRB and its subbasins.
Nevertheless, as there is a growing body of work on such trends, which have
implications for non-stationarity of the climate, we briefly review this
research here, limiting the discussion to observations concerning APF
magnitude. Significant long-term trends in temperature and precipitation
have been detected over a network of meteorological stations in the FRB and
its surroundings; a summary of these trends is available in a recent report
from the BC Ministry of the Environment (BC MOE, 2016) (in what follows, we
average results for three regions used in the report which cover most of the
FRB area: Sub-Boreal Interior, Central Interior, and Southern Interior).
Annual (summer; winter) mean temperatures have increased at the rate of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C century<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.7; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C century<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
over the 1900–2013 period, while minimum winter temperature
has increased at the more rapid rate of 2.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C century<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
The latter coincides with reduced winter snow depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and snow water equivalent (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; both over 1950–2014),
mirroring a much larger-scale phenomenon occurring over Canada
and the US (Gan et al., 2013; Knowles, 2015) and much of the Northern
Hemisphere (Rupp et al., 2013; Jeong et al., 2017). On the other hand,
precipitation amounts have increased in the FRB over 1900–2013, by about
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in spring, summer, and fall, with no significant
change in winter precipitation (BC MOE, 2016). However, sparse station
coverage in the early decades of the twentieth century casts doubt on the
robustness of this result. Restricting attention to the period 1950–2014, we
used the regional data to compute precipitation trends of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.3 % decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in spring, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.3 % decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in fall and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.1 % decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in winter, with no significant trend detected in summer. Over
the last century (1912–2012), an earlier onset of the half-annual streamflow
volume date was detected in one subbasin of the FRB (Stellako, 9-day
advance) as well as at the major outlet to the basin at Hope (6-day
advance). The latter conclusion was reinforced by Kang et al. (2016), who
noted a statistically significant advance, by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 days, of
the APF at Fraser-Hope over the 1949–2006 period.</p>
      <p id="d1e555">Recent decadal trends in the magnitude of annual and/or seasonal mean
streamflow at gauge stations in BC and western Canada have been investigated
by several authors (Pike et al., 2010; Bawden et al., 2015; DeBeer et al.,
2016; BC MOE, 2016), with no significant trends detected at stations in the
FRB. Hernández-Henríquez et al. (2017) conducted analyses on the FRB
specifically, using a network of long-term measurements at 139 streamflow
gauge stations available from the online Hydrometric Database (HYDAT; Water
Survey of Canada, 2016). At Fraser-Hope specifically, Déry et al. (2012)
found an increasing trend in interannual streamflow variability between 1960
and 2005, in both annual and seasonal means, suggesting an increase in the
frequency and/or intensity of low- and/or high-flow conditions, but with no
detectable trend in annual mean streamflow at Hope.</p>
      <p id="d1e558">With respect to trends in the APF specifically, Cunderlik and Ouarda (2009)
found no significant trend at most Reference Hydrometric Basin Network (RHBN)
stations in the FRB over the 1974–2003 period, but noted a weak trend
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1–5 %) toward decreasing magnitude and earlier APF
occurrence at two stations. A Canada-wide nonstationary analysis by Tan and
Gan (2015), suggested that APF increased over recent decades at two stations
in the FRB: the Stellako R. at Glenannan and Chilliwack R. at Chilliwack
Lake. More aligned with our interests here, Burn and Hag Elnur (2002) found
a weak negative correlation between APF and annual mean temperature at
Quesnel in the FRB over the 1950–1997 period. We look for similar
relationships between a range of climatic variables and APF at the scale of
both the FRB and its major subbasins in Sect. 3 below.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e572">Water Survey of Canada (WSC) hydrometric stations and corresponding
basin and subbasin characteristics.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Station name (WSC ID)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Basin/subbasin name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Period of</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Subbasin</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Mean</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">record</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">area</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">elevation</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>(</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mo>(</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fraser R. at Hope (08MF005)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fraser (FRB)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1912–2014</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">217 000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1330</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fraser R. at Shelley (08KB001)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Upper Fraser</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1951–2014</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">32 400</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1308</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Quesnel R. near Quesnel (08KH006)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Quesnel</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1939–2013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11 500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1173</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Thompson R. near Spences Bridge (08LF051)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Thompson–Nicola</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1952–2013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">54 900</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1747</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Chilko R. near Redstone (08MA001)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Chilko</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1927–2013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6940</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1756</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e765">Finally, it is important to recognize the influence of large-scale climate
teleconnections on streamflow in the FRB. Previous researchers have
investigated the influence of modes of large-scale climate variability on
various river basins in western North America. Specifically, relationships
between total and/or peak annual river discharge and the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO), El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the Pacific
North America index have been examined (Shabbar et al., 1997; Rood et al.,
2005; Gobena and Gan, 2006; Bonsal and Shabbar, 2008; Whitfield et al., 2010;
Gurrapu et al., 2016), while impacts of large-scale teleconnections on
snowpacks in BC were examined by Moore and McKendry (1996) and Hsieh and
Tang (2001). El Niño and La Niña typically occur every 3 to 5 years,
often separated by 1 to 2 years of neutral conditions. The lower frequency
PDO is a superposition of several interacting climate processes, including
ENSO, mid-latitude ocean currents and atmospheric influences on mid-latitude
sea surface temperatures (Alexander, 2010). El Niño events are more
likely to occur during the positive phase of the PDO, while La Niña
events are more common during the negative phase.</p>
      <p id="d1e768">During the negative (cold) phase of the PDO, and La Niña periods,
winters in western Canada are typically cooler and wetter than average, with
a larger snowpack at high elevations leading to higher annual discharge than
average. Roughly opposite behaviour occurs during the positive (warm) PDO
phase and occurrences of El Niño. Extending earlier work by Woo and
Thorne (2003) and Thorne and Woo (2011), Gurrapu et al. (2016) determined
that the PDO index is significantly anti-correlated (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05) with
APF at eight hydrometeorological stations in the FRB, while APF is
correlated with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), which tracks ENSO
phase, at 11 stations (note that SOI is anti-correlated with the NINO3.4
index, and so also the PDO index). Specifically, both Thorne and Woo (2011)
and Gurrapu et al. (2016) found that the observed APF was generally higher
during the negative PDO phase and during La Niña years. For this reason,
decadal trends in climatic variables, including streamflow, are sensitive to
the phase of the PDO, which argues for a cautious interpretation of the
results cited above.</p>
      <p id="d1e785">The paper is structured as follows. Data sources, the VIC model and methods
of analysis are described in Section 2. The main results of the study are
gathered in Sect. 3, which begins with the regression analysis of
observations before presenting insights from the VIC simulation results.
Section 4 presents a few case studies that illuminate the precursors of high
streamflow in particular years, and also reinforce the regression-based
results. We conclude in Sect. 5 with a short discussion of outstanding
issues and conclusions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Data and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Study domain and observational data</title>
      <p id="d1e804">The location of the FRB within western Canada and BC is shown in Fig. 1. The
observational data set used for analysis and for driving the hydrological
model (see Sect. 2.2 below) is taken from the gridded data set of surface
temperature and precipitation at daily temporal and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial
resolution described by Schnorbus et al. (2011), hereafter referred to as
PCIC-OBS. The original station data, which span the period from January 1950
to December 2006, are interpolated to the grid and corrected for elevation
using the Climate Data for Western North America (Climate WNA) package
(<uri>https://sites.ualberta.ca/~ahamann/data/climatewna.html</uri>; Hamann et
al., 2013), based on very high resolution climatologies for the region that
are developed with the Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes
Model (PRISM; Daly et al., 2008). Precipitation is not partitioned into rain
and snow separately in PCIC-OBS. Since we are interested in<?pagebreak page2288?> investigating the
relationship between rainfall and APF specifically, we need to estimate the
rainfall-only portion, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. We do this using the empirical fit of Dai (2008),
which relates the fractional rain frequency to surface temperature via a
hyperbolic tangent function having four fitted parameters. We chose the
parameter values corresponding to land-only, annual mean precipitation
(seasonal fitted coefficients were also given by Dai (2008), but do not
differ much from the annual values).</p>
      <p id="d1e837">Daily streamflow data were obtained from the Water Survey of Canada (WSC)
Hydrometric Database (HYDAT; Water Survey of Canada, 2016) for five
hydrometric stations located within the FRB, as summarized in Table 1. The
main outlet at Hope, which integrates the flows from all upstream locations,
receives the most attention in the paper, but four subbasin outlets are also
considered. Three of these were selected on the basis of their leading
contributions to the observed mean annual discharge at Fraser-Hope: Upper
Fraser (29 %), Thompson–Nicola (28 %), and Quesnel (9 %) (Kang et al.,
2016). These subbasins are located in the eastern FRB, cover 45% of the
total area, and represent nival environments. The smaller Chilko basin, by
contrast, lies on the southwestern edge of the FRB and intercepts a
significant amount of rain falling on the east-facing side of the Coast
Mountains, making it a hybrid (nival–pluvial) catchment. Hence, this
subbasin was included in an attempt to probe the sensitivity of streamflow to
rainfall. Manual snow survey (MSS) SWE measurements taken at the beginning of
each non-summer month (eight times per year) were obtained from the BC Snow
Survey Network Program, distributed by the BC River Forecast Centre
(<uri>http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/data/</uri>). The data do not permit the exact
determination of the annual maximum SWE, so we extracted the 1 April SWE from
each year for analysis. Data from 19 locations that are at least 81 %
complete spanning the period 1956–2014 were averaged to obtain an annual
1 April SWE time series for the entire FRB. The MSS stations are mainly
located at high-elevation sites in the Coast and Rocky Mountain ranges; exact
locations are shown in Fig. 1 of Najafi et al. (2017). Another source of snow
cover data, from automated snow pillows at high-elevation sites, was also
examined. However, as only a few of these sites have records longer than 20
years (within the 1956–2006 period of PCIC-OBS), we decided to exclude them
from the analysis.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e846">Predictor variables and descriptions including their origin.
Acronyms are as defined in the text, with the exception of ESRL/GCOS, Earth
System Resource Laboratory/Global Climate Observing System (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA), and JISAO, Joint Institute for the
Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (University of Washington/NOAA).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Predictor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Units</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Description</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Source</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Maximum annual snow, SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>;</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Annual maximum snow water equivalent (VIC);</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">VIC; MSS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1 April SWE, SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Apr</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 April snow water equivalent (OBS)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">October mean total column soil moisture</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Previous October mean value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">VIC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cold season rainfall</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Sum of rainfall between 1 October and 31 March</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">PCIC-OBS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring rainfall</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Sum of rainfall between days of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (VIC) or</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">PCIC-OBS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Apr</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (OBS) and annual maximum streamflow (APF)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">APF rainfall</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Sum of rainfall from 15 days prior to 5 days after APF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">PCIC-OBS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Freezing degree days</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute value of sum of negative daily mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">PCIC-OBS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">from 1 October to 31 March</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring warming rate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Slope of daily mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between days of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">PCIC-OBS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Snowmelt rate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mm day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Slope of daily SWE between dates of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and APF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">VIC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Date of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SWE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">day</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Calendar day of maximum SWE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">VIC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Melt season length, SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">days</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Date of 0.25 SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> minus date of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">VIC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NINO3.4 index</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">HadISST1 anomaly over 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and 170–120<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">ESRL/GCOS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PDO index</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Leading principal component of monthly SST anomalies</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">JISAO</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">in the North Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1353">We use the PDO and NINO3.4 indices to characterize the relevant large-scale
climate modes affecting the region. The PDO index is derived as the leading
principal component of monthly sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in
the North Pacific Ocean northward of 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N (<uri>http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest.txt</uri>). For the
corresponding predictor variable, we use the mean PDO index from the
preceding November to March, following Gurrapu et al. (2016). The NINO3.4
index is calculated from the Hadley Centre SST and sea ice gridded data set,
HadISST1, as the area average of SST from 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N
and 170–120<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, available from <uri>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Nino34/</uri>.
We use the mean value from June to November of the preceding year as a
predictor. Note that this differs slightly from Gurrapu et al. (2016), who
instead made use of the SOI over the same months (NINO3.4 and the SOI are
strongly negatively correlated). A list of all variables analyzed may be
found in Table 2.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Hydrological model and boundary forcing</title>
      <p id="d1e1407">The gridded temperature and precipitation data described above were used to
drive the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) hydrological model (Liang et
al., 1994) over a large portion of BC, including the FRB, from 1950 to 2006.
The VIC model is applied at a horizontal resolution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5–6 km, depending on latitude), and solves the one-dimensional
water and energy balance equations within each grid cell at a daily time step
(with the exception of the snow sub-model, which runs at hourly resolution).
The VIC implementation used in this study incorporates five elevation bands
corresponding to 200 m vertical resolution, with the number of elevation
bands in any one <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid cell depending on the topography within
that cell. Each VIC grid cell can be assigned up to eight major vegetation
classes, with a fractional cell area assigned to each, and these land cover
fractions are identical for each elevation band within a VIC grid cell. Three
of the input PCIC-OBS fields, maximum and minimum temperature and
precipitation, are vertically interpolated to provide values for each
elevation band (the other input field, surface wind speed, is not
interpolated). In<?pagebreak page2289?> VIC, precipitation type (rain or snow) at the grid scale is
determined by fixed temperature thresholds, with snow falling when
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, rain when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, and a linearly
interpolated mix of the two at intermediate temperatures. While this differs
somewhat from the partitioning applied to the PCIC-OBS precipitation
(Sect. 2.1) used in the regression analysis of Sect. 3 for both observations
and models, the treatments are sufficiently similar that we do not expect a
significant bias to arise. Snowpack is represented by a two-layer scheme – a
thin surface overlying a thick deeper layer – subject to mass and energy
balance, similar to other cold land process models. The snow albedo
parameterization in VIC is based entirely on snow age, with a different
albedo decay rate used during accumulation and snowmelt seasons. Interested
readers are directed to Andreadis et al. (2009) for further details.</p>
      <p id="d1e1504">Glaciers are not explicitly parameterized in VIC; however, the version of VIC
used here produces a perennial, accumulating snowpack at several
high-elevation grid cells, many of which coincide with the locations of
glaciers in the real system (also noted by Islam and Déry, 2017, who used
a version of VIC with lower horizontal resolution but finer vertical
resolution). These anomalous “glacier” cells cause the annual maximum of
the basin average SWE, SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, to increase approximately linearly
with time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: i.e., SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the value of SWE at an affected cell at the start of the
simulation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a fitted trend. The linear increase in
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is clearly unrealistic and is not seen, e.g., in the
corresponding observed 1 April SWE time series averaged over the FRB, which
has a trend indistinguishable from zero. In order to reproduce this
basin-averaged trend of approximately zero in the VIC model, we masked out
the affected cells according to the criterion <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 mm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
with the slope <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> determined from a linear least-squares fit over the
1950–2006 period of the calibrated VIC simulation (see below). In addition,
we confirmed a posteriori that the removal of these anomalous cells had
little effect on the correlation structure of the basin average
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with any of the variables examined in Sect. 3 below.</p>
      <p id="d1e1638">Soil parameters in VIC are defined for each grid cell. Soil classification
and parameterization are based primarily on physical data from the Soils
Program in the Global Soil Data Products CD-ROM (GSD, 2000), which originate
from a global pedon database produced by the International Soil Reference and
Information Center (ISRIC) (Batjes, 1995) and the FAO-UNESCO Digital Soil Map
of the World (DSMW) (FAO, 1995). Although VIC contains a parameterization for
seasonally frozen soils (Cherkauer and Lettenmaier, 1999), it increases the
computation time significantly and so was not activated (the simulation we
analyzed was originally produced for a different purpose). Surface and
subsurface runoff are generated for each grid cell, and subsequently directed
into a surface routing network (Lohmann et al., 1996, 1998; Schnorbus et al.,
2011). Simulated streamflow can be extracted at grid cells representing
outlets of the<?pagebreak page2290?> FRB or any one of its subbasins, which can be evaluated
against stream gauge measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e1641">VIC has been calibrated and evaluated in the FRB and its subbasins
(Schnorbus et al., 2010; Shrestha et al., 2012, 2014) and
also in other nearby hydrological basins (Schnorbus et al., 2011). Recently,
Islam and Déry (2017) used a lower horizontal resolution version of VIC
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) to study its sensitivity to several different gridded
input data sets, including PCIC-OBS. They found that while driving VIC with
PCIC-OBS tended to overestimate SWE, the resultant hydrographs for the FRB
and its basins were in better agreement with observations than when
competing data products were used as driving data sets. VIC model output
variables, including SWE, total column soil moisture (both over the period
1950–2006), and routed streamflow at the location of WSC stations (1955–2004),
were obtained from the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium Data
Portal (Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, 2014).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Selection of predictors and analysis methods</title>
      <p id="d1e1672">We use regression models to study the relationship between APF at Fraser-Hope
and climate variables, termed “predictors”, that may influence APF.
Predictors were selected based on physical intuition, inspection of the
relevant literature and initial exploratory data analysis. Prior studies that
were particularly helpful in this regard were Gurrapu et al. (2016), who
examined the influence of the PDO on streamflow in western Canada, Jenicek et
al. (2016), who examined the influence of snow accumulation and other
variables on summer low flows, Coles et al. (2017), who studied
snowmelt-runoff generation on Canadian prairie hillslopes, and Wever et
al. (2017), who conducted model simulations of the joint effect of snowmelt
and soil moisture on streamflow in a Swiss Alpine catchment. The predictor
variables chosen are listed in Table 2.</p>
      <p id="d1e1675">Both univariate and multivariate linear regression models were constructed to
explore predictor–predictand relationships. The APF was determined as the
maximum annual value of the running 3-day mean discharge at Fraser-Hope. Most
of the predictors are represented as basin averages, but two, the ENSO and
PDO indices, describe large-scale, multi-year climate modes of variability.
The influence of large-scale climate can be manifested as nonstationary
behaviour (e.g., trends) in the predictand and/or predictors. Since
regression models are sensitive to both trends and autocorrelation in the
underlying time series, all univariate regressions were checked for the
presence of both (e.g., see Shumway and Stoffer, 2017, and specifically their
online supplement,
<uri>https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat510/node/53</uri>).</p>
      <p id="d1e1681">Specifically, for the predictand (APF) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and each
predictor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we first fit the models (by linear least-squares regression):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M117" display="block"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \hack{\noindent}?>where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the corresponding detrended annual time series.
If, as determined from the fit, there was no statistically significant
temporal trend (with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05) in either <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, then
the latter were used in the subsequent analysis in place of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Trends were detected in certain time series, as reviewed in
Sect. 3.1 below. Regression models including variables with significant
trends were generally found to have inflated correlation coefficients (e.g.,
Pearson's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or Spearman's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>) compared to those using the
same variables after detrending. The analysis proceeds using the fitted
linear regression model to the detrended series <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. If a
statistically significant relationship was found (again with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05), then the associated correlation coefficient was taken
to be a conservative measure of the relationship between the predictand and
predictor. We say “conservative” because it is possible that the residuals
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may yet possess an
autoregressive structure, i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> … <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">w</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
…, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are constants (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mo>≠</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">w</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents white noise (Shumway and Stoffer, 2017). If
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2/<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msqrt><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at any lag <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1,
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the length of the time series, then further analysis
would be required to fully specify the regression model. However, including
autoregressive terms as predictors in the model will only increase the
explained variance (e.g., Pearson's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), so we can be confident that the
correlation coefficient after detrending, but without including
autoregressive terms, underestimates the correlation coefficient. In
practice, however, autocorrelation was detected only in a few cases (using the
function acf2 in the R library astsa from the R Statistical Computing package;
R Core Team, 2017), and principally amongst predictors themselves, not in the regressions of APF on predictors.</p>
      <p id="d1e2288">Ultimately, the nonparametric Spearman rank correlation, with sample
estimator <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>, was used to characterize the interannual regression
results as it makes no assumptions regarding the distribution of the climatic
and hydrologic data. A correlation matrix of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> was constructed by
repeated univariate regression over all variables (including detrending where
necessary), and the results summarized in the correlograms presented in
Sect. 3. Another nonparametric measure, the Theil–Sen slope, is used to
calculate temporal trends of the predictand and predictors in Sect. 3.1. The
Theil–Sen slope is a median of slopes calculated for each pair of data
points and is less sensitive to outliers than the standard least-squares
regression line (Sen, 1968). Multiple linear regression (MLR) analyses were
also conducted by including all possible combinations of the predictors
listed in Table 2. We retained the MLR model that featured 1) the most
variables (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) with partial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-values less than 0.05 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sig</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
and (2) a Pearson-adjusted coefficient of determination <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">adj</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
larger than any MLR with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sig</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> predictors. We also tried
adding predictors in a stepwise manner, obtaining similar results.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2379">Trends in observed and VIC-simulated variables over the period of each
record. Results are only shown for those variables that contain a statistically
significant trend at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05 level. The trend was calculated using
the Theil–Sen median slope estimator (Sect. 2.3). Slightly different results
are obtained for observed inputs to the VIC model due to the difference in start
and end years of the time series. The residuals of each fit were checked for
autocorrelation, with none detected. NA indicates this info is not available
in the observations we used.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col1" nameend="col3" align="center">Observations (1956–2006) </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col6" align="center">VIC model (1955–2004) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable (units of trend)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Trend</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Pearson</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Trend</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Pearson</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(Sen)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(Sen)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">APF (m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Freezing degree days (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C day yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">April–June mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C day yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.026</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring rain (mm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.927</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.13</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PDO (yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.035</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.038</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.17</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Snowmelt rate (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0137</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Melt season length (day yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">NA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.225</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.12</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?pagebreak page2291?><p id="d1e2807">In order to discern differences between data samples drawn from potentially
distinct distributions, we apply a permutation or resampling test at several
points in the analysis. For two input data sets, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of length
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, the test statistic
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mo>≡</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> mean(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)/mean(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is calculated. The two sets are then
combined, i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mo>≡</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mo>∪</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and a large number (we chose
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of paired, random samples of lengths <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
drawn from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. For each sample (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the same statistic
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is recalculated, and the number of exceedances,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">exc</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), summed over all <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, …,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> samples. If the ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">exc</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is sufficiently near
either 0 or 1, then the original test statistic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is taken to indicate a
significant difference between the samples at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> or 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> level.
We adopt the commonly used threshold value of min(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05.</p>
      <p id="d1e3138">Finally, while most predictors are well characterized by their annual maximum
or seasonally averaged values, daily rainfall needs special attention due to
its high temporal variance even when averaged over the entire FRB. To better
identify significant, multi-day rainfall episodes, we computed the current
rainfall index (CRI), following Fedora and Beschta (1989) and Smakhtin and
Masse (2000):

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M236" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CRI</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CRI</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            The CRI incorporates both the most recent daily rainfall amount (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
an exponential decay in the weight given to previous rainfall events. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the daily recession coefficient and reflects the storage capacity of the
basin which depends somewhat on its physical properties (e.g., topography
and area). We set <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.9 following a previous application in Pacific
Northwest basins (Fedora and Beschta, 1989). The CRI proves useful for
investigating intra-annual correlations between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and daily streamflow, which
is covered in Sect. 3.3.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Trends in observed time series</title>
      <p id="d1e3303">We begin by searching for temporal trends in the input time series. These are
of intrinsic interest, but also for interpreting the results of the
univariate and multivariate regression models later in this section. In
addition to APF, we computed linear trends using the Theil–Sen slope
estimator for the eight observed variables listed in Table 2 over the common
period of record 1956–2006, with the results summarized in Table 3. Of the
nine variables, four display statistically significant trends at the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05 level: APF, freezing degree days (absolute value of the sum of
negative daily mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C from 1 October to 31 March,
hereafter FDD), April–June mean temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and the PDO
index. The correlation coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is small for all the fits
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.10–0.16), indicating that the trends are modest compared to
the scatter in the annual data. The decreasing trend in FDD and increasing
trend in April–June mean temperature (0.26 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) are
qualitatively consistent with the regional temperature trends summarized in
Sect. 1.1. The trend in APF of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>37 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, or
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.3 % decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, is of the same sign but lower magnitude than that
estimated for annual mean flow at Hope by BC MOE (2016)
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.7 % decade<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> between 1958 and 2012). However, it is worth
noting that over the entire 1912–2014 period of the gauge record at
Fraser-Hope, there is no significant trend detected in APF, even at the less
conservative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-level of 0.1. The same is true of the PDO index over its
much longer period of record (1900–2015). Nevertheless, we detrended the
1956–2006 observed time series of APF before computing the correlograms
shown later in this section.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3494"><bold>(a)</bold> Regression of observed annual peak daily streamflow (APF)
magnitude at Fraser-Hope hydrometric station (vertical axis) against the NINO3.4
index over the period 1912–2014. Year labels are plotted as individual points.
<bold>(b)</bold> Same as in <bold>(a)</bold> but for the PDO index. Years in boldface
font are discussed in the text of Sect. 3.2. <bold>(c)</bold> Percentiles of APF
in years when the NINO3.4 index is in the negative (La Niña) phase (filled
circles) versus the positive (El Niño) phase (open circles). The solid curve
shows the median result of resampling the combined data set of both ENSO phases
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> times. The significance of differences between APFs in either phase and
corresponding samples of the combined data set is assessed using a permutation
test (Sect. 2.3), resulting in the indicated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-values. <bold>(d)</bold> Same as
in <bold>(c)</bold> but for the PDO index.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page2292?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Influence of large-scale climate modes on observed streamflow at Fraser-Hope</title>
      <p id="d1e3547">Before investigating relationships between climate and APF at the basin
scale, we examine the influence of the PDO and ENSO on the observed APF at
the Fraser-Hope stream gauge station. This station was not included in the
Gurrapu et al. (2016) study, but we derive results similar to theirs at
other stations, as shown in Fig. 2. The figure shows that higher APF is
associated with negative (cold) phases of the NINO3.4 (Fig. 2a) and PDO
(Fig. 2b) indices over the 103-year record (1912–2014) at Fraser-Hope. While
the statistical relationships between the large-scale climate modes and the
APF are robust (Spearman correlation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.40 for
NINO3.4, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.35 for PDO, both with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>),
Fig. 2a and b show that the largest APF in the record (1948; shown in
boldface font on the plot) occurred during a neutral PDO phase and weak
La Niña conditions, as did the fifth- and sixth-largest (1964 and 1997,
also in bold). The second- to fourth-largest APFs (1972, 1950, 2012)
occurred during strong negative PDO phases but weak La Niña conditions.
This suggests that while APFs occurring during a negative PDO or La Niña
phase may be larger than average, the very largest APFs may be influenced by
more local drivers, of either climatic or non-climatic nature (e.g.,
elevation and aspect). Indeed, our results indicate that the PDO and NINO3.4
indices explain only <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.12–0.16 or
12–16 % of the variance (with considerable interdependence between the
two modes). Correlations of similar magnitude and sign were found at many
more stations within the FRB by Thorne and Woo (2011).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3656"><bold>(a)</bold> Regression of observed APF against basin-averaged
1 April SWE over the Fraser Basin, within the period of overlapping records,
1956–2014. The solid blue line is the least-squares linear regression fit,
while the dashed curves show the 95 % confidence interval. Adjusted Pearson
and Spearman rank correlation coefficients, along with their associated
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-values, are indicated at upper left. <bold>(b)</bold> Correlogram of all
observed variables, averaged over the Fraser Basin over the common period of
records for all variables, 1956–2006. Numerical values are Spearman rank
correlation coefficients, and coloured squares indicate significant
correlations at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 level.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3691">Another way of visualizing streamflow sensitivity to ENSO and PDO phase is
exhibited in the percentile plots<?pagebreak page2293?> of Fig. 2c and d. These plots can reveal
differences in sample distributions more clearly than a histogram or density
plot. For example, for the PDO the time series of APF was first divided into
years with positive (PDO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pos</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and negative (PDO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">neg</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) PDO index. Then
a resampling (permutation) test was applied to check whether the test
statistic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [mean(APF)]<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PDO</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">neg</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>[mean(APF)]<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PDO</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pos</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> differed from
that calculated from 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> random samples of the combined (both positive
and negative PDO phase) data set (Sect. 2.3). Figure 2d shows that the APF in
years with negative (cold) PDO phase is significantly larger than in years
with positive (warm) PDO phase, consistent with the relationship seen in the
scatter plot (Fig. 2b). Similar results were found for ENSO, as seen in Fig. 2c.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Basin-scale relationships amongst observed variables</title>
      <p id="d1e3775">To initiate our investigation of basin-scale drivers for APFs, we revisited
the observed data. Specifically, we regressed the observed APF at
Fraser-Hope against FRB-wide averages of the observed predictors in Table 2.
Figure 3b shows a correlogram of the univariate regression results for all
observed variables over the common period of 1956–2006. Variables with
detected trends over this period (Sect. 3.1) were detrended before
constructing the correlogram, as described in Sect. 2.3. We summarize the
results for individual predictors below, before looking at their joint
influence on APF at the end of the subsection.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>3.3.1</label><title>Snow water equivalent (SWE)</title>
      <p id="d1e3786">As expected given the mainly nival character of the FRB, we find that
interannual variations in 1 April SWE and APF are strongly correlated, with
a Spearman correlation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.64 over the common period
of 1956–2014 of the MSS and WSC time series (Fig. 3a). This figure shows the
raw data, while Fig. 3b shows the correlogram of all variables over the
shorter common period of 1956–2006, including detrending where necessary.
These differences lead to a somewhat smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.51 between
1 April SWE and APF. Nevertheless, the conclusion that years with higher
than average SWE tend to produce higher peak streamflow at Fraser-Hope
remains robust.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>3.3.2</label><title>Temperature</title>
      <?pagebreak page2294?><p id="d1e3831">Several diagnostics of the effect of surface air temperature <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> on APF were
examined. First, we computed FDD from the PCIC-OBS data averaged over the
entire FRB. This helps determine whether exceptionally cold winters
correspond to an unusually large snowpack, potentially producing an enhanced
snowmelt contribution to the spring freshet. Second, we calculated the
April–June mean temperature <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which roughly coincides with the
interval between the time of 1 April SWE and APF. Finally, we computed the
warming rate over the freshet period, d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, by computing the linear
least-squares slope of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between 1 April and the date of APF, or annual peak
date (APD). Over the 1956–2006 period at Fraser-Hope, the APD ranges from
16 May to 23 July, with a median of 13 June. The corresponding warming rates in
different years range from 0.093 to 0.26 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.16 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), implying a typical warming over the
median freshet (under the linear approximation) of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>
      <p id="d1e3943">The correlations of these variables with APF are displayed in the
correlogram of Fig. 3b. Here it is seen that amongst these variables,
April–June mean temperature is anti-correlated with APF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.42),
while FDD and d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are positively correlated with APF [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.21
(not significant) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.26, respectively]. All
else being equal, an unusually cold winter (high FDD) would be expected to
result in a larger snowpack and a larger snowmelt contribution to streamflow
consistent with the positive correlation found between FDD and APF. By the
same reasoning, an unusually cold spring (low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) resulting in a
delayed, but more rapid snowmelt during the freshet, would again be expected
to increase that year's APF. In years with normal summer <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, this situation
would produce a larger than normal warming rate, consistent with the
positive correlation found between d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and APF. Finally, we note from Fig. 3b
that a positive correlation is seen between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.30), implying that high spring temperatures are associated with rapid warming.</p><?xmltex \hack{\vspace*{1mm}}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS3">
  <label>3.3.3</label><title>Rainfall</title>
      <p id="d1e4114"><?xmltex \hack{\vspace*{1mm}}?>As mentioned in Sect. 2.3, daily rainfall <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> shows a high temporal variance
even when averaged over the entire FRB, which could introduce spurious noise
into the regressions. For this reason, we looked at three integrated forms
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: (1) the summed rainfall over the winter months, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Oct</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mar</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>;
(2) the sum of rainfall between 1 April and the day of APF, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Spring</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; and (3) the sum
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> over the 15 days prior to the APD, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">APF</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These metrics offer
differing probes of the influence of rainfall on the APF at different lags
and temporal resolution. However, none of the rainfall measures displayed a
significant relationship with observed APF (Fig. 3b), reinforcing the
designation of the FRB as a primarily nival basin. Indeed, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">APF</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
completely unrelated to APF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02, not shown in Fig. 3b).
Although severe flooding in several small catchments in the US Pacific
Northwest has been attributed to rain-on-snow events (McCabe et al., 2007;
Surfleet and Tollos, 2013), we see no evidence of this in the much larger FRB.</p>
      <p id="d1e4206">Unlike SWE, the basin-averaged, annual maximum CRI, CRI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
generally occurs during summer and fall (calendar days 160 to 301), although
multiple peaks in a given year are often observed (see ff., Fig. 9). This
contrasts with the narrower distribution of APF dates occurring in
spring–summer (days 136–204), suggesting a weak relationship may exist
between the two on the seasonal timescale.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e4220">Results of lagged regression of FRB-averaged daily rainfall,
characterized by the current rainfall index (CRI), on streamflow at
Fraser-Hope. Only the subset of years wherein there exists a significant
relationship between CRI and discharge are shown. The ENSO state, as
specified in the legend according to colour (EN: El Niño,
LN: La Niña), corresponds to the year preceding the rainfall and
discharge, and was obtained from <uri>http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm</uri>,
based on the same definition used in the analysis of Sect. 3 (i.e., NINO3.4).
The maximum correlation, max(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), is shown on the vertical
axis, with the corresponding lag, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, between rainfall and discharge on
the horizontal axis. A positive lag means that streamflow lags CRI. Circles:
observed precipitation versus observed discharge over the 1950–2006 period.
Triangles: observed precipitation versus VIC-simulated discharge. All
correlations are significant at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05 level. Two outlier points
with lags <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 days (with none exceeding
max(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.42) are omitted from the plot.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4303">Focusing exclusively on annual maxima or summed values of rainfall and APF
might cause us to miss important relationships between rain and discharge on
shorter timescales. To investigate these types of linkages, we interrogated
the respective daily time series. Specifically, we computed the annual
cross-correlation function between deseasonalized streamflow (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
CRI (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) anomalies for each year <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M340" display="block"><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mean</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the anomaly time series of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., difference
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and its multi-year mean annual cycle) in year <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (and similarly
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the applied lag (days) between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
ranging over <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>183 days. If max(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">365</mml:mn></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, then
CRI both leads and positively correlates with streamflow in that year,
suggesting a causal relationship. The results are displayed in Fig. 4. Each
point in the scatterplot represents max(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) calculated over
(365 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) pairs taken from the two daily time series for the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th calendar year. Figure 4 shows that about half (26 of 50) of the years
exhibit a significant relationship at some time during the year, with
max(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) ranging from 0.24 to 0.72 with lags of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0–51 days (Fig. 4, open circles). Two clear outliers, at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 93 and 114 days, were disregarded (not shown). For each point
plotted in Fig. 4, the corresponding ENSO state for that year, taken from
historical data, is indicated; 3 of the 5 (and 4 of the 10) largest
correlations were associated with strong El Niño years, each with a lag
of 2 days or less between rainfall and streamflow (Fig. 4). Rainfall<?pagebreak page2295?> events
in the upper reaches of the FRB can have a delayed effect on streamflow at
Hope of up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 week (BC River Forecast Centre, 2012), while in years
with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 to 8 weeks, soil moisture that is near field capacity
might be responsible for successive overland flow following rainfall events.
However, Fig. 4 shows that these situations tend to occur during weak or
moderate La Niña conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e4753">Finally, we note the possibility that significant multi-day rainfall events
coinciding with frozen or saturated soils might lead to occasional flooding
at local scales within the FRB. While suitable soil moisture observations
are not readily available at this time (see Sect. 5), we employ the VIC model
to examine the role of soil moisture in both the FRB and its sub-basins
using the regression framework in Sect. 3.4.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS4">
  <label>3.3.4</label><title>Relationships amongst observed predictors</title>
      <p id="d1e4764">Finally, we investigated relationships amongst observational variables
unrelated to streamflow revealed in the correlogram of Fig. 3b. April–June
mean temperature is positively correlated with spring warming rate and
negatively correlated with 1 April SWE, both intuitively reasonable results,
as is the positive correlation of FDD with SWE. Strong inverse relationships
also exist between spring rainfall and (i) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.48), and (ii) warming rate
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.69). Both of these relations are reasonable given
that the rainfall fraction diminishes approximately linearly with decreasing
temperature toward 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, according to the Dai (2008)
parameterization used here. Finally, cold season (October–March) rainfall is
anti-correlated with FDD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.32) (Fig. 3b).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS5">
  <label>3.3.5</label><title>Multivariate regression</title>
      <p id="d1e4868">The above results were derived using univariate linear regression and
correlations computed using the Spearman rank method. However, we also would
like to attribute interannual variance in the APF to the combined variances
of the predictors. As described in Sect. 2.3, we constructed a number of MLR
relations including all possible combinations of the above variables that
showed a significant Spearman <inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> when regressed individually against APF.</p>
      <p id="d1e4881">The MLR procedure yields the following multilinear regression fits:

                  <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M386" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">APF</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="true" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4535</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.40</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SWE</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Apr</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">068</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">603.2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>4</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">adj</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.63</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              <?xmltex \hack{\vspace*{-6mm}}?>

                  <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M387" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">APF</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="true" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4106</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10.48</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SWE</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Apr</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">815</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">494.3</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">402.3</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NINO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>5</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">adj</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.65</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \hack{\noindent}?>where the units of the predictors on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (4) and (5)
are provided in Table 2. Equation (4) includes only local, basin-averaged
predictors, while Eq. (5) includes the non-local influences of ENSO and PDO.
Interestingly, only NINO3.4, not the PDO index, is a significant predictor of
APF in the MLR, despite the comparable importance of both indices in the
univariate regressions (Sect. 3.2). The residuals from both fits are
indistinguishable from a Gaussian distribution at the 5 % significance
level, according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic. Additional parameters
of the fits are summarized in Table 4. The predictors on the right-hand side
of Eqs. (4) and (5) are ordered from left to right by decreasing partial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
value: e.g., SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Apr</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> contributes the majority of the interannual
variance in APF, followed by d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and NINO3.4
(Table 4). Together, these variables explain 65 % of the variance, 2 %
more than if the influence of ENSO is ignored. As mentioned above, rainfall
variables do not contribute significantly to the interannual variability of
the observed APF at Fraser-Hope.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Observed versus VIC-simulated streamflow and SWE</title>
      <p id="d1e5218">Before exploring relationships between APF and the wider array of variables
available in the VIC hydrological model, as an evaluation exercise we compare
several features of the VIC simulations with available observations in the
FRB. In Fig. 5a, we compare the 10
largest APFs in observations and VIC at Fraser-Hope station over the
simulation period of 1955–2004. The APFs have been ranked by their observed
magnitude, with the highest flow years on the left-hand side of the bar
graph. In most years, the VIC-simulated APFs are close to the observed
values. Figure 5b compares the daily climatology and interannual variability
of VIC and observations over the same period. VIC tends to overestimate the
magnitude of the APF by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8 % (multi-year mean) to 16 % (multi-year
maximum), and also simulates an APD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 days later than in the
observations. VIC underestimates interannual streamflow variability over most
of the year, except over the period of peak flow from June to mid-August,
when it displays higher variability. However, given that the interannual
coefficient of variation in observed APF (CV <inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>/mean[APF]) is
18 %, that the VIC-simulated CV <inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 %, and their degree of overlap,
we conclude that the hydrographs are not significantly different.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e5258"><bold>(a)</bold> Annual peak daily streamflow (APF) magnitude in
observations (red) and in the VIC simulation (blue) at Fraser-Hope, ranked by
observed values over 1955–2004. <bold>(b)</bold> Annual cycle of daily
streamflow in observations (red) and VIC simulation (blue) over 1955–2004 at
Fraser-Hope. <bold>(c)</bold> Quantile plots of VIC-simulated versus observed APF
and APD at Fraser-Hope. Differences between the respective distributions are
assessed using a permutation test with 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resamples; the resulting
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-values are indicated in each sub-panel. <bold>(d)</bold> 1 April observed SWE
(red) compared with annual cycle of SWE from VIC, both averaged over the FRB
for 1956–2006. Heavy curves in <bold>(b)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> show the
multi-year mean, while shaded areas show the interannual range.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e5301">Figure 5c shows quantile plots of APF and APD for VIC compared to observations
over the 1955–2004 period. Here, the permutation test was applied using the
test statistic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [mean(APF)]<inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VIC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>/[mean(APF)]<inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OBS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Sect. 2.3). Figure 5c shows that for APF, the VIC-simulated APF is indistinguishable from the
stream gauge observations at the 5 % significance level (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.07 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.24 if the two outliers with VIC-simulated APF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 13 000 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are removed), while the late bias in
VIC-simulated APD is significant at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 % level. As our
main concern in this work<?pagebreak page2296?> is with identifying key predictors of the APF,
with less emphasis on APD, we conclude that VIC simulates APF reasonably
well compared to observations.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Table 4</label><caption><p id="d1e5412">Fitted parameters from multilinear regression of the form:
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> … For each
basin or subbasin, the first row in columns 2 to 6 indicates the relevant
predictors, while the second and third rows list the fit coefficients and
partial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-values, respectively (all partial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-values are less than 0.05). The
total <inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-value and adjusted Pearson correlation for each fit is provided in
columns 7 and 8, respectively. For the subbasins, only VIC results are
given, due to the small number of 1 April observed SWE values available.
Results given for OBS include basin-averaged predictors over the FRB, while
those for OBS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> include indices of large-scale climate variability.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Basin/subbasin</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Int.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">adj</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">FRB</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">– OBS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Apr</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4535</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">11.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17 068</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>603.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">60.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">29.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.63</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">– OBS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Apr</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NINO3.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4106</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17 815</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>494.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>402.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">65.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">24.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.65</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">– VIC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">d(SWE)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M459" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3239</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">37.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">26 842</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>57.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1769.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">101</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">38.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">38.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Upper Fraser</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Spring</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2414</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.257</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>28.43</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.453</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">39.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">19.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.53</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Quesnel</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Sep</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>542.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.834</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">988.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2291.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">55.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">19.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">26.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.61</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Thompson-Nicola</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Oct</mml:mi><mml:mtext>-</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mar</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>805.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.181</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7199.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.341</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">97.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">39.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">48.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Chilko</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>142.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.152</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">786.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">56.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">32.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.56</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e6618">Correlogram of all observed and VIC-simulated variables, averaged over
the Fraser Basin within the common period of records, 1955–2004. All values
are Spearman rank correlation coefficients, and coloured squares indicate
significant correlations at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 level. A hierarchical clustering
algorithm has been applied to group like-with-like correlations.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e6641">Due to the dominant influence of annual snowpack on APF, it is also
desirable to compare the VIC-simulated SWE with observed 1 April SWE
measurements. In the analysis of the VIC simulation, we use SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as a
predictor instead of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Apr</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> since it is expected to be more closely
linked to APF on physical grounds. In Fig. 5d, the annual cycle of the
corrected, VIC-simulated SWE (Sect. 2.2) is compared with the observed
1 April SWE, with both quantities represented by their basin averages. While
there is significant overlap in the interannual ranges of simulated and
observed SWE, VIC appears to systematically underestimate the snowpack
amount. However, it is important to recognize the sampling bias inherent in
the observed, basin-average SWE: since the MSS stations tend to be located
at high elevation (range: 750–2200 m), the observed estimates are likely
biased high compared to a true basin average, as represented in VIC. In
addition, we note that the apparent VIC biases in peak streamflow and SWE
over the FRB are qualitatively consistent with VIC simulations over other
nival basins in the Pacific Northwest (Salathé Jr. et al., 2014).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><title>Relationships amongst VIC-simulated variables</title>
      <p id="d1e6674">In this section we apply the methodology of Sect. 3.3 to probe relationships
amongst the wider array of variables available in the VIC hydrological model
over the FRB. We begin with an analysis of the routed model streamflow at
Fraser-Hope, as a representative outlet of the entire FRB, before examining
VIC-modelled discharge at the outlets of four subbasins within the FRB in Sect. 3.6.</p>
      <p id="d1e6677">In addition to the PCIC-OBS variables used in the regression analysis of
Sect. 3.3 – which were used as daily forcings for the VIC simulation – we
include a number of variables available in the model but not in observations,
namely annual maximum of SWE averaged over the FRB, SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>;
calendar date of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; snowmelt rate, d(SWE)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; melt
season length, SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; and antecedent total column soil moisture
(detailed definitions are given in Table 2). The regression results are again
summarized as a correlogram (Fig. 6) and in Table 4. The annual snowmelt
rate, d(SWE)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M489" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, was<?pagebreak page2297?> calculated as the best-fit, least-squares linear
slope of SWE between the dates of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and APF. Formally
speaking, d(SWE)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the snow ablation rate, which in VIC includes
snowmelt as the dominant contribution along with evaporation and rain-on-snow
(other snow removal processes occurring in nature such as blowing snow or
avalanches are not simulated). For convenience, however, we refer to
d(SWE)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M493" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M494" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as simply the snowmelt rate with the understanding that these
other processes may make minor contributions to snowpack disintegration.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5.SSS1">
  <label>3.5.1</label><title>Influence of large-scale climate modes on streamflow at Fraser-Hope</title>
      <p id="d1e6781">Through the influence of the forcing variables, the PDO and ENSO may affect
the VIC-simulated APF at Fraser-Hope. Indeed, we find a slightly more
robust, but qualitatively similar, relationship between the large-scale
climate indices and modelled APF than for observed APF: as seen in Fig. 6,
the correlations are Spearman <inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.41 for NINO3.4 and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M499" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M500" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.38 for PDO (both at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M501" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M502" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M503" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5.SSS2">
  <label>3.5.2</label><title>Snow water equivalent and snowmelt</title>
      <p id="d1e6868">As noted for the observed 1 April SWE, we find that SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M504" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
exercises a strong control on APF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M505" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M506" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.70, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M507" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M508" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.001;
Fig. 6). The latter lags SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> by an average of 84 days (range
52–127 days) over the simulation period; examples for specific years are
displayed in Fig. 9. Further, Table 5 shows that of the top 10 APF years in
this period, 7 were in the top 10 of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M510" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Yet, the highest APF
corresponds to the 6th-largest SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M511" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (1982), while the
4th-highest APF occurred in an average year for snow accumulation (1958). It
is therefore of interest to investigate what conditions, independent of snow
accumulation, led to the comparatively large APF in those years.</p>
      <p id="d1e6939">Snowmelt displays significant positive correlations with APF
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.43) and several other predictors, namely
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M514" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M515" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M516" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.63), FDD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M518" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.38),
date of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M519" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M520" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M521" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.32), d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M524" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M525" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25), and maximum annual soil moisture
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M526" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.64). In years with high SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M528" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, snowmelt in
spring recharges soil moisture (over unfrozen ground; see Sect. 3.5.3),
sometimes to field capacity, which leads to<?pagebreak page2298?> increased runoff and the strong
positive correlations between snowmelt, soil moisture and APF. Significant
negative correlations are also found with melt season length
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M529" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M530" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M531" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.53) and the NINO3.4 and PDO indices
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M533" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.28 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M535" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.46, respectively). The inverse
relationship with the large-scale indices should be considered in light of
their similar relationship with SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M537" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M539" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.47 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M540" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.62, for NINO3.4 and PDO respectively):
higher snowpack accumulates during La Niña and negative PDO phases, with
reduced snowmelt due to cooler temperatures.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5.SSS3">
  <label>3.5.3</label><title>Soil moisture</title>
      <p id="d1e7196">In our VIC simulation, the basin-averaged annual peak soil moisture,
SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, occurs during the snowmelt period from mid-March to
mid-June, most often near the end of May, well after the day of
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M542" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and approximately 3 weeks in advance of the APF (for an
illustration depicting individual years, see Fig. 9). The direct influence of
both SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M543" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M544" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M545" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.83) and snowmelt
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M546" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M547" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.64) on SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M548" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is detected at high confidence
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M549" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M550" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M551" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), while SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M552" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is, in turn, strongly
correlated with APF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M553" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M554" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.65, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M555" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M556" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M557" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the
annual time series (Fig. 6). A cross-correlation analysis of the respective
daily time series over the entire common period reveals that, on average, SWE
leads SM by 68 days (maximum cross-correlation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M558" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M559" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.65), SM leads
streamflow by 22 days (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M560" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M561" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.85), and SWE leads streamflow by 105 days
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M562" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M563" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.74). The higher cross-correlation between SM and streamflow
indicates that the annual cycle of SM is a better predictor of the daily
streamflow hydrograph than SWE, despite the above-mentioned superiority of
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M564" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as an annual predictor of APF. This is a reasonable
result, since during the freshet, daily SM integrates contributions from both
snowmelt and precipitation. On the other hand, SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M565" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> could be
considered inferior to SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M566" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as a predictor of APF with respect
to its much shorter lead time. SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M567" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> also exhibits significant
relationships with FDD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M568" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M569" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.33), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M570" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M571" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M572" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M573" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.27) and the NINO3.4 and PDO indices
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M574" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M575" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M576" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.44 for both). The negative phases of ENSO and the
PDO bring more rain and snow, which consequently enhances soil moisture.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Table 5</label><caption><p id="d1e7510">Top 10 APF years at Fraser-Hope in the VIC simulation over the
period 1955–2004, along with corresponding ranks of other basin-averaged
predictors. Years in boldface font are highlighted in Fig. 9.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Rank</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Year</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Rank</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Rank</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Rank</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Rank</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Rank</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">APF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">APF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M577" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">SM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">FDD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M578" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M579" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">spring</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">rain</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1982</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">47</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>1972</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>2</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>1</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>4</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>21</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>26</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1974</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">22</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>1958</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>25</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>13</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>46</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>49</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1956</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">23</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1967</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">39</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>1999</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>4</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>8</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>44</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>45</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>1</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1997</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">13</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1964</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e7901">Also of interest is a possible relationship between APF and SM preceding the
snowmelt period, for example, in fall before snow accumulation begins.
Numerous studies point to the influence of antecedent soil moisture on
seasonal streamflow in nival catchments (Maurer and Lettenmaier, 2003; Berg
and Mulroy, 2006; Williams et al., 2009; Harpold and Molotch, 2015). Using a
suite of land surface models including VIC, Koster et al. (2010) and
Mahanama et al. (2012) demonstrated improvement of March–July streamflow
forecast skill over the western United States using antecedent (1 January)
soil moisture in addition to snow amount as a predictor. The basic mechanism
is that antecedent reduced storage capacity of wet or frozen soils leads to
more of the snowmelt being routed to discharge during the spring freshet,
and vice-versa for dry soils. To investigate the interannual sensitivity of
APF to antecedent SM, we used monthly mean SM from the preceding August
through November in turn as predictors of APF, but found no significant
correlations. This insensitivity may be due to the lack of a frozen soil
parameterization in the version of VIC used here. In this implementation,
soil drainage over the cold season tends to be<?pagebreak page2299?> overestimated (Cherkauer and
Lettenmaier, 2003), which could cause a decoupling between autumn SM and
spring freshet flows.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5.SSS4">
  <label>3.5.4</label><title>Temperature and rainfall</title>
      <p id="d1e7912">As in the observations, FDD and spring warming rate d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M580" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M581" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are positively
correlated with APF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M582" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M583" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.24 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M584" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M585" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.38,
respectively; Fig. 6). The connection between d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M586" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M587" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and APF is stronger than in
the observations but, interestingly, there is no significant correlation
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M588" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and APF as exists in the observational data (Eqs. 4
and 5). Further, the results in Table 5 suggest that large APFs in average SWE
years are characterized by large d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M589" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M590" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g., 1982, 1958, 2002).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e8014">Correlogram of observed and VIC-simulated variables, averaged over
each of the indicated subbasins within the 1955–2004 period, against APF at
the subbasin outlet (Table 1). The cell values and colour scale indicate
Spearman rank correlations, significant at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M591" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M592" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 level. The ordering
of variable columns is the same as in Fig. 6, for ease of comparison.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e8037">Again as in the observations (Sect. 3.3.3), no significant correlations are
found between any of the rainfall measures and VIC-simulated APF. However, as
also found in the observations, there are indications of a
rainfall–streamflow connection at other times of the year. Repeating the
cross-correlation analysis between streamflow and CRI as in Sect. 3.3.3
reveals that 20 of 50 years exhibit a significant relationship at some time
during the year, with max(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M593" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) ranging from 0.27 to 0.66 with
lags of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M594" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M595" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2–55 days. Two clear outliers, at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M596" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M597" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 91 and
142 days, were disregarded. Figure 4 (triangles) shows that most (nine) of
the rainfall-influenced years occur during the El Niño phase, while four
occur during La Niña and seven during neutral years. Twelve of the
20 rainfall-influenced years occur during the cool phase of the PDO. More
often than not, however, CRI lags daily streamflow, suggesting little to no
relationship. With regard to other relationships, we find that cold season
rainfall is correlated with spring rainfall (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M598" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M599" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.32) and
anti-correlated with FDD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M600" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M601" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M602" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.32) (Fig. 6). As mentioned
in Sect. 3.3.4, spring rainfall is negatively correlated
with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M603" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M604" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M605" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and snowmelt, but with slightly different
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M606" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> values due to the different lengths of averaging period in the
calculations compared to the observed case (as per the definitions in
Table 2).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5.SSS5">
  <label>3.5.5</label><title>Multivariate regression</title>
      <p id="d1e8178">As in the case of the observed variables, we constructed MLR relations
including all combinations of the variables in Fig. 6 that showed a
significant Spearman <inline-formula><mml:math id="M607" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and selected the optimal MLR based on the
criteria specified in Sect. 3.3.5. One predictor that was excluded from the
MLR was SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M608" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: its high correlation with SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M609" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
indicates that its independent explanatory power is limited (Sect. 3.5.3).
The resulting relationship is

                  <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M610" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">APF</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="true">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VIC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3239</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">37.14</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SWE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">26</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">842</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">57.69</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SWE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1770</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SWE</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>6</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">adj</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \hack{\noindent}?>In contrast to the MLR constructed for observed streamflow, Eq. (5), neither
of the large-scale climate indices has a significant influence, nor is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M611" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
an important predictor. Nevertheless, the four variables on the
right-hand side of Eq. (6) account for 75 % of the interannual variance in
APF. Three of the four were identified in the univariate regressions as
important, with the exception being the length of the melt season,
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M612" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The latter displays a strong anti-correlation with snowmelt
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M613" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M614" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M615" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.55, Fig. 6), suggesting that the two variables are
not independent. However, since removing each of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M616" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
d(SWE)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M617" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M618" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the MLR in turn yields a significantly poorer fit
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M619" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">adj</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M620" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.71 for d(SWE)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M621" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M622" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> only and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M623" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">adj</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M624" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.69 for
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M625" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> only), it seems that both predictors have some explanatory
value. The absence of both the PDO and NINO3.4 indices from the MLR could be
a reflection of the limitations of the driving data, inasmuch as the
processing of gridded station data to the regular grid may weaken the
influence of the large-scale climate drivers (Sect. 2.1).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS6">
  <label>3.6</label><title>Relationships amongst VIC-simulated variables at the subbasin scale</title>
      <p id="d1e8499">The same analysis as conducted for the entire FRB was repeated for each of
the four subbasins comprising nearly 70 % of the annual flow at Fraser-Hope
(Table 1; Kang et al., 2016). The results of the univariate regressions are
presented as a correlogram in Fig. 7, while those for the MLR are provided in
Table 4.</p>
      <p id="d1e8502">Overall, the relationships in the subbasins mirror those seen in the FRB as
a whole. The univariate analysis shows that in all four subbasins,
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M626" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M627" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are good predictors of APF, while snowmelt and
FDD exhibit positive correlations with APF in three of the four subbasins,
Chilko being the exception (Fig. 7). While SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M628" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> has a slightly
stronger influence on APF than SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M629" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the FRB, SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M630" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is more
influential at the subbasin scale, explaining over 75 % of the variance in
APF in Quesnel (compared to 40 % for SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M631" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). The correlation between
spring d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M632" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M633" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and APF is strong in Thompson–Nicola (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M634" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M635" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.50, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M636" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M637" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05)
but weaker in Quesnel (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M638" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M639" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M640" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M641" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1) and not significant in the
other two catchments. Three of the four subbasins exhibit a strong inverse
relationship between APF and the NINO3.4 and PDO indices, again with the
exception of Chilko. The weak dependence of streamflow on the PDO, SOI and
Pacific-North American indices in this and other catchments in the western
FRB was also noted by Thorne and Woo (2011), who attributed this
insensitivity to the low magnitude of discharge in these tributaries. These
authors speculated that the main trunk of the Fraser, by contrast,
integrates the influence of regional climate forcings on upstream
catchments, bolstering the teleconnections. The insensitivity of APF to the
local, basin-averaged predictors might be related to the smaller size of the
Chilko compared to the other three subbasins, which lowers the
signal-to-noise ratio of the basin averages. This, along with the
comparatively lower APFs at the basin<?pagebreak page2300?> outlet, makes the detection of
significant correlations more challenging in Chilko compared with the other subbasins.</p>
      <p id="d1e8640">Moving now to the MLR analysis, the results in Table 4 demonstrate that in
all four subbasins, SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M642" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the most skillful predictor of APF,
again in agreement with the results for the FRB as a whole. Likewise, in
three of the four catchments, d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M643" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M644" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> emerges as the next most significant
variable. The exception is the Upper Fraser basin, where SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M645" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the second most skillful predictor. In this subbasin, APF is inversely
correlated with SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M646" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the MLR, while the latter is in turn
anti-correlated with both d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M647" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M648" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M649" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M650" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M651" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.81,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M652" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M653" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M654" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amj</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M655" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M656" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M657" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.25,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M658" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M659" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1) in the univariate regressions (Fig. 6). These results suggest
that anomalously warm springtime temperatures (compared to the preceding
winter) are at the heart of the APF–SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M660" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> relationship in the
Upper Fraser, not unlike what is seen in the other subbasins.</p>
      <p id="d1e8803">In contrast to the FRB as a whole, rainfall does appear to have a weak
influence on APF in two of the subbasins. However, in each subbasin, APF is
sensitive to a different measure of rainfall. In Thompson–Nicola, the basin
with the largest area and second-highest mean elevation,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M661" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Oct</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mar</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is positively correlated with APF, while in
the Upper Fraser, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M662" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Spring</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> displays a somewhat weaker positive
relationship with APF. In the Quesnel, a smaller basin of lower mean
elevation, the preceding September mean soil moisture is an effective
predictor of APF. Interestingly, neither the NINO3.4 nor the PDO index is an
effective predictor of APF in the MLR of any of the subbasins, despite the
fact that strong inverse relationships are still seen in the univariate
correlogram (Fig. 6).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS7">
  <label>3.7</label><title>Co-dependence of streamflow predictors</title>
      <p id="d1e8841">The above results make it clear that, of the predictors considered in the FRB
and its subbasins, APF is primarily influenced by SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M663" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and the
rate of warming in spring, d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M664" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M665" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. To explore the co-dependence between
predictors, we show in Fig. 8 a scatterplot of the relative anomaly of each
of these two predictors,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M666" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M667" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M668" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M669" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M670" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M671" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the value of predictor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M672" display="inline"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at year <inline-formula><mml:math id="M673" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M674" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the long-term mean (1955–2004), with the corresponding streamflow relative
anomaly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M675" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indicated by the point colour. This type of
plot has been used previously to explore the elasticity (i.e., non-linearity)
of streamflow as a function of covariates (e.g., Andréassian et al.,
2016). However, here we employ it primarily as an additional illustration of
the co-dependencies identified by the MLR analysis.</p>
      <p id="d1e8986">In the FRB, the roughly uniform pattern of scatter in the vertical and
horizontal directions indicates a weak co-dependence between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M676" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M677" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M678" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M679" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M680" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), consistent with
expectation – d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M681" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M682" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed only after the day of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M683" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
each year – and with the results of Figs. 5 and 6. The corresponding
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M684" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values display an overall gradient from bottom left
to top right, i.e., from lower than average SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M685" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M686" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M687" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
to higher than average SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M688" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M689" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M690" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, again consistent
with the univariate and multivariate regression results. Qualitatively
similar results are found in the Chilko, Thompson–Nicola and Quesnel
subbasins.</p>
      <p id="d1e9126">In the Upper Fraser subbasin, the primary predictor remains
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M691" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, but the secondary predictor is SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M692" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. As a
result, the scatterplot displays a weak co-dependence between relative
changes in the two variables, with some clustering toward the diagonal.
Furthermore, the overall gradient in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M693" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is from top
left to bottom right, i.e., from lower than average SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M694" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
higher than average SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M695" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to higher than average
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M696" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and lower than average SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M697" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. That is, in
years when an anomalously large snowpack (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M698" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M699" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M700" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0)
melts fairly quickly (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M701" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M702" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M703" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0), streamflow tends
to be larger than usual (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M704" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M705" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e9268">Scatterplots showing the co-dependence of relative APF,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M706" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (colour scale) on the two principal predictors from
the MLR analysis (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M707" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>- and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M708" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axes), expressed as relative anomalies, in
each basin. Counterclockwise from top left: entire Fraser (FRB),
Thompson–Nicola (THN), Upper Fraser (UFR), Chilko (CHK) and Quesnel (QNL).
The primary predictor in all subbasins is SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M709" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, while the
secondary predictor is d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M710" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M711" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in all subbasins except UFR, where it is
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M712" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The Spearman rank correlation between the two predictors
is shown at upper left in each panel; other than in UFR, none are significant
at the 10 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M713" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M714" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1) level.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page2302?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Case studies: high-flow years in the FRB</title>
      <p id="d1e9367">While the MLR approach captures the relationship between various predictors
and APF in the FRB and its subbasins in a statistical manner, it can miss
unusual weather factors that are important in specific years. Both
historical data and anecdotal accounts of large historical floods in the
region place a large emphasis on the precise seasonal development of warming
temperatures and rainfall during the snowmelt period from early April to
late June as being a critical factor in the development of damaging floods
(BC River Forecast Centre, 2012; Septer, 2007). For this reason, we present
in this section an “anatomy” of streamflow and the associated key
hydrological variables in years of particularly high VIC-simulated discharge
at the Fraser-Hope station. We focus on VIC-simulated variables since full
time series of all variables of interest are available to construct both a
climatology and annual cycles for specific years.</p>
      <p id="d1e9370">Table 5 shows the top 10 APFs occurring in the VIC simulation from 1955 to
2004, with corresponding rankings of other key predictors entering the
regression analysis of Sect. 3. Seven of the top 10 SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M715" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> years
are in this group. This highlights the dominant effect of spring snowpack on
APF magnitude in the FRB. A similar result holds for observed basin-averaged
1 April SWE and APF at Fraser-Hope: 8 of the top 10 1 April SWE years are
also amongst the top 10 observed APFs. Looking at results for the other
predictors, 7 of the top 10 SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M716" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> years (not surprising given the
linkage between SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M717" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M718" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> noted in
Sect. 3.4.3), 4 of the top 10 spring warming rates and 3 of the top 10 FDDs
are in the group of top 10 APFs. Only 1 of the top 10 spring rainfalls is in
the group, which happens to be the highest simulated rainfall in 1999
(8th largest APF). These results are therefore consistent with the key
predictors identified for APF in the regression analysis of Sect. 3.</p>
      <p id="d1e9409">Figure 9 shows the annual cycle of discharge at Fraser-Hope along with other
variables of interest over the calendar year for 3 of the top 10 APF years:
1958, 1972 and 1999. The daily evolution of discharge <inline-formula><mml:math id="M719" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at Fraser-Hope and
basin-averaged SWE, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M720" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, CRI and SM are plotted, along with their
1955–2004 climatologies, as an aid to evaluating how anomalous a given year
is. A 15-day smoothing filter was applied to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M721" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to better highlight
sub-seasonal trends. Also shown in the bottom two subpanels of each panel are
the difference between the slope of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M722" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated over a 61-day moving
window in the year of interest and its climatology (the warming rate
anomaly), and the difference of the snowmelt rate from its climatology
calculated over a 15-day moving window. Both anomalies were set to zero if
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M723" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M724" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0, since we are interested in behaviour during the melt season
only. We consider each year in turn, as each exhibits a unique phenomenology
that illuminates the development of the APF in that year. Also, in this
section we provide descriptions of the two largest flooding events ever
recorded in the FRB – the freshets of 1894 and 1948 – both of which precede
the simulated period. It is instructive that there are similarities between
the meteorological precursors and covariates in those years and the
explicitly simulated years highlighted below.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e9458">Annual cycles of key variables from the VIC simulation, constructed
from daily output. Results for three high-APF years are shown: <bold>(a)</bold> 1958;
<bold>(b)</bold> 1972; and <bold>(c)</bold> 1999. In each panel, sub-panels show, from
top to bottom: streamflow (black, left-hand axis); SWE (blue, right-hand axis);
surface air temperature (red, left-hand axis); current rainfall index, CRI
(green, right-hand axis); soil moisture (brown); warming rate anomaly; and
melting rate anomaly. In the upper three sub-panels, solid curves show time
series for the year indicated at top right, while dashed curves show the
multi-year (1955–2004) mean climatology. The calculations underlying the lower
two sub-panels are described in Sect. 4.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/2285/2018/hess-22-2285-2018-f09.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Warm spring in an average SWE year: 1958</title>
      <p id="d1e9483">APF in the year 1958 ranked 4th over the 1955–2004 period of the simulation
(Table 5) and 13th in observed APF. Yet, as simulated by VIC, 1958 was a
normal SWE year, with SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M725" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> achieved near the end of March.
Rainfall and soil moisture were also near normal up to this point, while
winter temperatures were above normal but still below freezing (Fig. 9a). At
the beginning of the melt season in April, d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M726" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M727" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> began to exceed its
climatological value, prompting rapid snowmelt toward the end of that month.
The anomalous snowmelt persisted until the end of May, about the time of the
APF (APD), while the period of elevated warming rate continued into early
June. The snowmelt pulse produced a coincident soil moisture anomaly, which
is remarkable in that these quantities are averaged over the entire FRB, yet
their behaviour is consistent with small-scale processes. Subsequent to the
APD, the soil moisture anomaly became negative, apparently in response to the
prolonged warming, which would lead to enhanced evaporation, and lower than
normal rainfall over the summer. Figure 9a demonstrates that neither rainfall
nor high soil moisture prior to freeze-up were pivotal factors in producing
the anomalously large APF in this year. Indeed, rainfall amounts were well
below normal between snowmelt initiation and the APD (49th out of 50 years;
Table 5).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>A high-SWE year: 1972</title>
      <p id="d1e9520">The second-highest simulated APF over the 1955–2004 period occurred in 1972,
which also featured the second-highest SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M728" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 5). This
year also exhibited the largest observed APF over the same period (Fig. 5a).
While the preceding winter was colder than normal – evidently a factor in
generating an anomalously large snowpack – the spring warming rate was above
normal, resulting in a strong snowmelt anomaly lasting from May until just
after the APD in early June (Fig. 9b). As in 1958, this snowmelt pulse
generated a large soil moisture anomaly, which likely produced more overland
flow during the freshet. This evidence suggests that the extreme APF in 1972
was primarily caused by a combination of elevated warming in spring and a
heavy snowpack, which provided a large water surplus during the freshet.
However, there is also an indication that a series of heavy rainfall episodes
starting in early June, just days before the APD, affected the APF and
particularly the duration of the high-flow period. An extended period of
anomalously large rainfall is seen in the CRI between early June and late
July, with a clear response in SM and in the persistence of the
high-discharge anomaly until the end of August – both<?pagebreak page2303?> are clearly
distinguishable from their counterparts in 1958 (Fig. 9a).</p>
      <p id="d1e9532">Finally, it is worth noting that 1982, the year with the highest simulated
APF (not shown in Fig. 9), was characterized by a very similar evolution of
predictors as in 1972, including an extended, coincident period of
anomalously large rainfall. However, in that case, there were two additional
elements: (1) the spring warming rate was the highest of any year in the
record (Table 5), and (2) a strong warm anomaly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M729" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M730" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M731" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
occurred in mid-June just prior to the APD, which evidently generated enough
additional snowmelt runoff to position that APF as the highest over the
simulated period.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page2304?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Influence of rainfall in a high-SWE year: 1999</title>
      <p id="d1e9566">The year 1999 holds the distinction of having the highest simulated spring
rainfall in the record. It also had the fourth-largest VIC-simulated
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M732" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, while ranking eighth in APF (fifth in observed APF; see
Fig. 5a and Table 5). The temperature development was unremarkable, albeit a
little colder than the climatology in the freshet months of April and June
(Fig. 9c). The hydrograph reflects this increased role of rainfall by its
evident synoptic timescale variability, in contrast to its smoother
counterpart in the snowmelt-dominated years examined above (Fig. 9a and b).
Indeed, the character of the hydrograph over the freshet period is such that
isolating the single largest APF misses key features of the flow development,
which involves not one but four peak flows of roughly equal magnitude
spanning the period from mid-June to mid-August. Consequently, the use of
annual predictors with a single APF as predictand, as adopted in our
univariate and multivariate regressions, is likely to underweight a strong
influence of rainfall in a particular year. Table 3 shows that the maximum
cross-correlation of deseasonalized daily streamflow and CRI anomalies
during 1999 is 0.61 at a lag of 35 days (CRI leading streamflow), while
in 1958 the maximum is just 0.38 at a lag of 47 days. This implies that
rainfall should be treated differently than SWE and other predictors to
correctly capture its influence on APF. The evolution of SM is also different
than in the prior cases considered, insofar as it displays step-like jumps in
mid-March, early April, and mid-May followed by a plateau at a high level
until early July (Fig. 9c). This SM anomaly persisted for the remainder of
the year, except for a brief 2-week period in November. While in
snowmelt-dominated years SWE approaches its climatological value in late
summer (except in 1958, when it fell below that value), in 1999 a positive
SWE anomaly persisted throughout the year.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><title>The two highest flow years in the FRB: 1894 and 1948</title>
      <p id="d1e9586">A description of meteorological precursors to the 1894 and 1948 floods is
available from the BC MOE (BC MOE, 2008) and also the historical review,
based on newspaper accounts, of Septer (2007). According to limited archival
data available at two interior locations in the FRB, snowfall amounts during
the winter of 1893 and 1894 were near normal over the FRB as a whole, although the
snowpack remaining from the previous summer was reportedly larger than
usual. While the spring of 1894 was cold and wet in the FRB, temperatures
rose rapidly in late May, becoming unseasonably warm near the end of that
month. By the end of May, the Fraser overtopped its banks at many locations
and existing dikes were breached, leading to the “Great Chilliwack Flood”
in the densely populated Lower Fraser valley. The Fraser River at Mission
(near Hope) peaked on 5 June, but floodwaters did not subside in many areas
until early July. A hydraulic modelling exercise conducted in 2008 estimated
a peak discharge at Hope in the range of 16 000 to 18 000 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M733" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M734" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
with a best guess of 17 000 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M735" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M736" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (BC MOE, 2008).</p>
      <p id="d1e9631">The meteorological record for the FRB in 1948 is considerably more complete
than for 1894. It shows that precipitation was well above normal for a long
period in advance of the 1948 freshet, with excess rainfall in autumn 1947
and heavy snowfall in the subsequent winter and early spring. As a result,
soils in many areas were likely near saturation at the time of freeze-up, an
important factor for the partitioning of runoff from spring snowmelt. Also,
the accumulated reservoir of snow was larger than normal. The early spring
of 1948 was cooler than average to 20 May, followed by a rapid increase to
unseasonable warmth in late May–June. Thus, sensible heat inputs to the
existing high snowpack in the FRB were large, leading to a rapid and
voluminous release of meltwater to lower elevations. The peak flow at Hope
on 31 May was measured at 15 200 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M737" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M738" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which remains the highest
value in the instrumental record (Septer, 2007; BC MOE, 2008). Apparently,
neither the 1894 nor the 1948 event was characterized by excessive rainfall
coincident with the meltwater peaks.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Discussion and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e9665">In Sect. 3.4, we showed that the VIC model driven by gridded observations
provides an adequate simulation of streamflow and maximum annual SWE in the
FRB. The mutual resemblance of the correlograms (Figs. 3b and 6), which
summarize the univariate linear regression fits to observed and VIC data,
along with the similar forms of the respective MLR models (Eqs. 1–3),
give one further confidence in the ability of the VIC model to simulate
interactions between the key controls of streamflow acting in the real
system. Furthermore, differences in these controls in the observed and
modelled cases suggest fruitful avenues of further research. For example,
the use of more complete snow survey or satellite products might permit the
estimation of SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M739" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">len</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> or snowmelt rate, and confirmation of the
influence of these terms appearing in the VIC-derived MLR, Eq. (6). Or
conversely, improved driving data for the VIC model might reveal the
influence of the PDO and/or ENSO explicitly in the MLR, or the inverse
correlation with spring temperature and/or freezing degree days. The
relationships derived between the basin-averaged predictors examined and
streamflow at the major basin and subbasin outlets in the FRB should be
relevant to other large, nival watersheds elsewhere on the globe, since the
physical drivers (e.g., temperature seasonality and precipitation phase
change) are generic and scale-independent. However, it is important to
recognize that the influence of large-scale drivers (e.g., ENSO, PDO) will
differ depending on the specific geographic setting.</p>
      <p id="d1e9677">Interestingly, in the historical climate record we find little prospect of
using basin-averaged, rainfall-related indices<?pagebreak page2305?> as predictors of APF at
Fraser-Hope. It is possible, however, that at subbasin scales, and/or in
combination with an appropriate soil moisture indicator, some measure of
rainfall might prove useful for predicting localized flooding. This has been
a valuable strategy for APF/APD hindcasting in nival–pluvial and pluvial
catchments (Neiman et al., 2011; Surfleet and Tullos, 2013). Moreover, given
that the rain-to-snow ratio will increase in the FRB in response to further
warming (see below), future studies of projected streamflow could uncover an
explicit rainfall–streamflow connection at the basin scale.</p>
      <p id="d1e9680">We emphasize that the identification of the principal controls on APF at the
interannual timescale within the MLR framework has its limitations. The
relationships derived from historical inputs can only be considered broadly
indicative of expected behaviour, and then only in a basin-averaged sense.
Although based on only 50 years of simulated basin hydrology driven by
observed data, the VIC results imply that a high SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M740" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, say in
the top quartile of historical values (i.e., 7 of the top 10 in Table 5),
increases the chance of an upper quartile APF. The long interval between
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M741" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and APF, of order 2–4 months, makes the former a valuable
early warning indicator of possible flooding in the lower FRB (BC River
Forecast Centre, 2012). However, it is also true that 3 of the top 10
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M742" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> years (1976, ranked 3rd; 1991, 8th; and 1971, 9th) did not
exhibit remarkable floods: in those years, the corresponding APFs ranked
20th, 30th and 23rd. And while SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M743" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> has about the same success
rate as a predictor of APF – 7 of the top 10 APF years are top 10
SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M744" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> years – these are the same as for SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M745" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
meaning that soil moisture during the freshet is of little additional
predictive value. As mentioned in Sect. 3.5.3, the lack of a connection
between fall SM and APF in the historical VIC simulation suggests that future
model studies should include the effect of soil freezing to more
realistically simulate the spring thaw. Further, the estimation of
groundwater storage and its evolution using NASA's Gravity Recovery and
Climate Experiment (GRACE), which has proved promising for flood forecasting
in large, snowmelt-dominated basins (Reager et al., 2014; Wang and Russell,
2016), could find useful application in the FRB.</p>
      <p id="d1e9738">In Sect. 3, we demonstrated that the springtime warming rate, d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M746" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M747" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, was
the next most skillful predictor of APF in the FRB. Moreover, d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M748" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M749" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
appears to provide additional predictive value over that of
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M750" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M751" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, insofar as 2 of the top 10
d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M752" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M753" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> years are not top 10 SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M754" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and SM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M755" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (1958
and 2002; Table 5). Thus, the combination of an upper quartile
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M756" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with a high d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M757" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M758" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> over the snowmelt period may presage
flooding at Fraser-Hope station (9 out of the top 10 APFs were characterized
by one or the other; 4 featured both). The definition of d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M759" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M760" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> used here
is dependent upon the APD, which is of course unknown at the time of
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M761" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; however, in a predictive context, one could simply use
the most recent daily <inline-formula><mml:math id="M762" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> observation to compute the warming rate within a
window of increasing duration. Better still, if hydrological forecasting on
the daily to seasonal timescale is of paramount interest, employing a
forecast methodology based on an ensemble of hydrological simulations and
multiple initializations would constitute a superior approach (Bazile et al.,
2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e9890">In the event that future simulations of the FRB were to furnish annual time
series of the basin-averaged predictors appearing in Eq. (6) and/or Table 4
– for example from a coupled global climate model – could the MLR
relationships derived in this paper be used for predictions of future APF? We
could answer in the affirmative if both of the following conditions were to
hold: (1) the dominant predictors of APF in the late twentieth century
(defining a multi-decadal reference period) remain unchanged in the future
period of interest, and (2) the APF predictions comprise multi-year or
decadal-scale anomalies from the reference period: e.g., APF in 2080–2100
compared to 1980–2000. Assumption (1) is placed in some doubt due to the
significant warming projected for the FRB in future (Shrestha et al., 2012),
which will increase the rain-to-snow ratio over large areas of the basin
already characterized by an annual mean temperature near 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M763" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. This
suggests that rainfall may become a key predictor for high streamflow in the
region, with perhaps a less pivotal role played by SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M764" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Regarding condition (2), the suppression of interannual variability in the
MLR fits underestimates interannual variations in APF, meaning that only
decadal-scale averages of the predicted APF would be meaningful.</p>
      <p id="d1e9911">Of what use, then, are the predictor sets derived from the MLR analysis? The
application of nonstationary extreme value theory to APFs suggests at least
one promising avenue of progress (Towler et al., 2010; Shrestha et al.,
2017). In such models, the parameters of fitted distributions (e.g.,
location, scale and shape parameters of the generalized extreme value (GEV)
distribution) are taken to be functions of climate covariates. Temperature
and precipitation are often chosen for this purpose, due to their
availability in observations and climate models and the presumption that they
should influence streamflow at least under some circumstances. But as we have
shown, in a large nival basin such as the FRB, rainfall has a weak influence
on APF (although it would be expected to influence smaller magnitude flows),
while the warming rate is more influential than temperature itself in
determining APF magnitude. Hence, it may be worth introducing snowfall or
SWE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M765" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and/or spring d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M766" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M767" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as covariates of the GEV
parameters in the fitting of nonstationary probability distributions of APFs.
We leave this as an interesting topic for future investigation.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <?pagebreak page2306?><p id="d1e9944">Source data for this study are freely available from the
Water Survey of Canada (daily stream gauge measurements, <uri>https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/search/historical_e.html</uri>),
the BC River Forecast Centre (Manual Snow Survey data, <uri>https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/drought-flooding-dikes-dams/river-forecast-centre</uri>),
and the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium Data Portal (VIC model gridded output and routed
streamflow, <uri>https://www.pacificclimate.org/data</uri>). Driving temperature and
precipitation data for the VIC model (PCIC-OBS) are available from the authors upon request.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e9959">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e9965">This article is part of the special issue “Understanding and
predicting Earth system and hydrological change in cold regions”. It is not
associated with a conference.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e9971">We thank Markus Schnorbus and Arelia (Werner) Schoeneberg for helpful
discussions regarding the VIC model, Reza Najafi for providing observed SWE
data for the Fraser basin, Faron Anslow for providing the regional
temperature and precipitation time series data over BC, and Juraj Cunderlik for
sharing station locations from Cunderlik and Ouarda (2009). The comments of
Siraj Ul Islam and referees Stephen Déry, Michal Jenicek and an anonymous
reviewer also led to substantial improvements to the final paper. Charles L. Curry is
supported by the NSERC-funded Canadian Sea Ice and Snow Evolution (CanSISE) Network. <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Chris DeBeer <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: Michal Jenicek, Stephen Déry, and one anonymous referee</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Alexander, M. A.: Extratropical Air-Sea Interaction, SST Variability and the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), in: Climate Dynamics: Why Does Climate Vary?,
edited by: Sun, D. and Bryan, F., AGU Monograph #189, Washington, D.C., 123–148, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Andreadis, K. M., Storck, P., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Modeling snow accumulation
and ablation processes in forested environments, Water Resour. Res., 45, W05429,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007042" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008WR007042</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Andréassian, V., Coron, L., Lerat, J., and Le Moine, N.: Climate elasticity
of streamflow revisited – an elasticity index based on long-term hydrometeorological
records, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4503–4524, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4503-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-20-4503-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Barnett, T. P., Adam, J. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Potential impacts of a
warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions, Nature, 438, 303–309, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Batjes, N. H. (Ed.): A homogenized soil data file for global environmental
research: A subset of FAO, ISRIC and NRCS profiles (Version 1.0), Working Paper
and Preprint 95/10b, International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bawden, A. J., Burn, D. H., and Prowse, T. D.: Recent changes in patterns of
western Canadian river flow and association with climatic drivers, Hydrol. Res.,
46, 551–565, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Bazile, R., Boucher, M. A., Perreault, L., and Leconte, R.: Verification of
ECMWF System 4 for seasonal hydrological forecasting in a northern climate,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5747–5762, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5747-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-21-5747-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>BC MOE – British Columbia Ministry of the Environment: Comprehensive Review of
Fraser River at Hope Flood Hydrology and Flows – Scoping Study and Final Report,
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, available at: <uri>http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/pdfs_word/review_fraser_flood_flows_hope.pdf</uri>
(last access: 6 June 2017), 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>BC MOE – British Columbia Ministry of the Environment: Indicators of Climate
Change for British Columbia: 2016 Update, available at: <uri>http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-and-reporting/reporting/envreportbc/archived-reports/climate-change/climatechangeindicators-13sept2016_final.pdf</uri>
(last access: 19 June 2017), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>BC River Forecast Centre:
<uri>https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/drought-flooding-dikes-dams/river-forecast-centre</uri>,
last access: 12 April 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Berg, A. A. and Mulroy, K. A.: Streamflow predictability in the Saskatchewan/Nelson
River basin given macroscale estimates of the initial soil moisture status,
Hydrolog. Sci. J., 51, 642–654, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Bonsal, B. and Shabbar, A.: Impacts of Large-Scale Circulation Variability on
Low Streamflows Over Canada: A Review, Can. Water Res. J., 33, 137–154,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3302137" ext-link-type="DOI">10.4296/cwrj3302137</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>British Columbia River Forecast Centre: Flow Forecasting for the Lower Fraser
River (from Hope to the Ocean), internal report, available at: <uri>http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/freshet/lower_fraser/Flow Forecasting for the 20Lower Fraser River.pdf</uri>
(last access: 24 April 2017), 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Burn, D. H. and Hag Elnur, M. A.: Detection of hydrologic trends and variability,
J. Hydrol., 255, 107–122, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Cherkauer, K. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Hydrologic effects of frozen soils in
the upper Mississippi River basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 19599–19610, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Cherkauer, K. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Simulation of spatial variability in
snow and frozen soil, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8858, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003575" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD003575</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Coles, A. E., Appels, W. M., McConkey, B. G., and McDonnell, J. J.: The hierarchy
of controls on snowmelt–runoff generation over seasonally-frozen hillslopes,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-564" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-2016-564</ext-link>, in review, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Cunderlik, J. M. and Ouarda, T. B.: Trends in the timing and magnitude of floods
in Canada, J. Hydrol., 375, 471–480, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Dai, A.: Temperature and pressure dependence of the rain-snow phase transition
over land and ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L12802, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033295" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL033295</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Daly, C., Halbleib, M., Smith, J. I., Gibson, W. P., Doggett, M. K., Taylor, G.
H., Curtis, J., and Pasteris, P. P.: Physiographically sensitive mapping of
climatological temperature and precipitation across the coterminous United
States, Int. J. Climatol., 28, 2031–2064, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1688" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.1688</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Danco, J. F., DeAngelis, A. M., Raney, B. K., and Broccoli, A. J.: Effects of
a Warming Climate on Daily Snowfall Events in the Northern Hemisphere, J. Climate,
29, 6295–6318, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page2307?><ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>DeBeer, C. M., Wheater, H. S., Carey, S. K., and Chun, K. P.: Recent climatic,
cryospheric, and hydrological changes over the interior of western Canada: a
review and synthesis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1573–1598, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1573-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-20-1573-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Déry, S. J., Hernández-Henríquez, M. A., Owens, P. N., Parkes, M. W.,
and Petticrew, E. L.: A century of hydrological variability and trends in the
Fraser River Basin, Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 024019, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024019</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Duan, K., Sun, G., McNulty, S. G., Caldwell, P. V., Cohen, E. C., Sun, S.,
Aldridge, H. D., Zhou, D., Zhang, L., and Zhang, Y.: Future shift of the relative
roles of precipitation and temperature in controlling annual runoff in the
conterminous United States, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5517–5529,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5517-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-21-5517-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Eaton, B. and Moore, R. D.: Regional hydrology, in: Compendium of Forest Hydrology
and Geomorphology in British Columbia, Land Manag. Handb. 66, edited by: Pike,
R. G., Redding, T. E., Moore, R. D., Winker, R. D., and Bladon, K. D., B.C.
Min. For. Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, BC and FORREX Forum for Research
and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, BC, <uri>http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh66.htm</uri>
(last access: 17 August 2016), 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization: The digital soil map of the world,
version 3.5, FAO, Rome, <uri>http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=14116</uri>
(last access: 10 April 2018), 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Fedora, M. A. and Beschta, R. L.: Storm runoff simulation using an antecedent
precipitation index (API) model, J. Hydrol., 112, 121–133, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Fraser Basin Council: The Fraser: A Canadian Heritage River, 10-Year Monitoring
Report, available at: <uri>http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/resources_publications.html</uri>
(last access: 10 April 2018), 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Gan, T. Y., Barry, R. G., Gizaw, M., Gobena, A., and Balaji, R.: Changes in
North American snowpacks for 1979–2007 detected from the snow water equivalent
data of SMMR and SSM/I passive microwave and related climatic factors, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 7682–7697, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
GSD – Global Soil Data Task: Global Soil Data Products CD-ROM (IGBP-DIS), CD-ROM,
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Data and Information System, Potsdam,
Germany, available at Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Center,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Gobena, A. K. and Gan, T. Y.: Low-Frequency Variability in Southwestern Canadian
Streamflow: Links with Large-Scale Climate, Int. J. Climatol., 26, 1843–1869,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1336" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.1336</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Gurrapu, S., St-Jacques, J.-M., Sauchyn, D. J., and Hodder, K. R.: The Influence
of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on Annual Floods in the Rivers of Western
Canada, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 52, 1031–1045, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12433" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/1752-1688.12433</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Hamann, A., Wang, T., Spittlehouse, D. L., and Murdock, T. Q.: A comprehensive,
high-resolution database of historical and projected climate surfaces for western
North America, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94, 1307–1309, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Harpold, A. A. and Molotch, N. P.: Sensitivity of soil water availability to
changing snowmelt timing in the western U.S., Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 8011–8020,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065855" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL065855</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Hernández-Henríquez, M. A., Sharma, A. R., and Déry, S. J.:
Variability and trends in runoff in the rivers of British Columbia's Coast and
Insular Mountains, Hydrol. Process., 31, 3269–3282, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Hsieh, W. W. and Tang, B.: Interannual variability of accumulated snow in the
Columbia basin, British Columbia, Water Resour. Res., 37, 1753–1759, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Islam, S. U. and Déry, S. J.: Evaluating uncertainties in modelling the
snow hydrology of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia, Canada, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1827–1847, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1827-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-21-1827-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Jenicek, M., Seibert, J., Zappa, M., Staudinger, M., and Jonas, T.: Importance
of maximum snow accumulation for summer low flows in humid catchments, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 859–874, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-859-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-20-859-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Jeong, D. I., Sushama, L., and Khaliq, M. N.: Attribution of spring snow water
equivalent (SWE) changes over the northern hemisphere to anthropogenic effects,
Clim. Dynam., 48, 3645–3658, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Jiménez Cisneros, B. E., Oki, T., Arnell, N. W., Benito, G., Cogley, J. G.,
Döll, P., Jiang, T., and Mwakalila, S. S.: Freshwater resources, in: Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Field, C. B., Barros, V.
R., Dokken, D. J., Mach, K. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Bilir, T. E., Chatterjee,
M., Ebi, K. L., Estrada, Y. O., Genova, R. C., Girma, B., Kissel, E. S., Levy,
A. N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P. R., and White, L. L., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 229–269, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Kang, D. H., Gao, H., Shi, X., ul Islam, S., and Déry, S. J.: Impacts of a
rapidly declining mountain snowpack on streamflow timing in Canada's Fraser
River basin, Scient. Rep., 6, 19299, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19299" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep19299</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Knowles, N.: Trends in Snow Cover and Related Quantities at Weather Stations
in the Conterminous United States, J. Clim., 28, 7518-7528, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Koster, R. D., Mahanama, S. P., Livneh, B., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Reichle, R.
H.: Skill in streamflow forecasts derived from large-scale estimates of soil
moisture and snow, Nat. Geosci., 3, 613–616, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., and Burges, S. J.: A simple
hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general
circulation models, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 14415–14428, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00483" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/94JD00483</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Lohmann, D., Nolte-Holube, R., and Raschke, E.: A large-scale horizontal routing
model to be coupled to land surface parametrization schemes, Tellus A, 48, 708–721, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Lohmann, D., Raschke, E., Nijssen, B., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Regional scale
hydrology: I. Formulation of the VIC-2L model coupled to a routing model,
Hydrolog. Sci. J., 43, 131–141, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Mahanama, S., Livneh, B., Koster, R., Lettenmaier, D., and Reichle, R.: Soil
moisture, snow, and seasonal streamflow forecasts in the United States, J.
Hydrometeorol., 13, 189–203, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Matti, B., Dahlke, H. E., and Lyon, S. W.: On the variability of cold region
flooding, J. Hydrol., 534, 669–679, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page2308?><ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Maurer, E. P. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Predictability of seasonal runoff in the
Mississippi River basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8607, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002555" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002555</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>McCabe, G. J., Clarke, M. P., and Hay, L. E.: Rain-on-snow events in the Western
United States, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 319–328, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-3-319" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-88-3-319</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Milly, P. C. D., Dunne, K. A., and Vecchia, A. V.: Global pattern of trends in
streamflow and water availability in a changing climate, Nature, 438, 347–350, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, R. D.: Hydrology and water supply in the Fraser River basi, in: Water in
Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin,
edited by: Dorcey, A. H. J. and Griggs, J. R., Westwater Research Centre, The
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 21–40, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, R. D. and McKendry, I. G.: Spring snowpack anomaly patterns and winter
climatic variability, British Columbia, Canada, Water Resour. Res., 32, 623–632, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Najafi, M. R., Zwiers, F., and Gillett, N.: Attribution of the Observed Spring
Snowpack Decline in British Columbia to Anthropogenic Climate Change, J. Climate,
30, 4113–4130, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Neiman, P. J., Schick, L. J., Ralph, F. M., Hughes, M., and Wick, G. A.:
Flooding in western Washington: The connection to atmospheric rivers, J.
Hydrometeorol., 12, 1337–1358, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium: Station Hydrologic Model Output, University
of Victoria, available at: <uri>https://www.pacificclimate.org/data/station-hydrologic-model-output/</uri>
(last access: 10 May 2016), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium Data Portal: <uri>https://www.pacificclimate.org/data</uri>,
last access: 12 April 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Padilla, A., Rasouli, M., and Déry, S. J: Impacts of variability and trends
in runoff and water temperature on salmon migration in the Fraser River Basin,
Canada, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 60, 523–533, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Park, D. and Markus, M.: Analysis of a changing hydrologic flood regime using
the Variable Infiltration Capacity model, J. Hydrol., 515, 267–280, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Pike, R. G., Bennett, K. E., Redding, T. E., Werner, A. T., Spittlehouse, D. L.,
Moore, R. D., Murdock, T. Q., Beckers, J., Smerdon, B. D., Bladon, K. D., Foord,
V. N., Campbell, D. A., and Tschaplinski, P. J.: Climate change effects on
watershed processes in British Columbia, in: Compendium of Forest Hydrology and
Geomorphology in British Columbia, Land Manag. Handb. 66, edited by: Pike, R. G.,
Redding, T. E., Moore, R. D., Winker, R. D., and Bladon, K. D., B.C. Min. For.
Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, BC and FORREX Forum for Research and Extension
in Natural Resources, Kamloops, BC, <uri>http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh66.htm</uri>
(last access: 17 August 2016), 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation
for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, available at: <uri>https://www.R-project.org/</uri>,
last access: 18 October 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Reager, J. T., Thomas, B. F., and Famiglietti, J. S.: River basin flood potential
inferred using GRACE gravity observations at several months lead time, Nat. Geosci.,
7, 588–592, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Rood, S. B., Samuelson, G. M., Weber, J. K., and Wywrot, K. A.: Twentieth-century
decline in streamflows from the hydro- graphic apex of North America, J. Hydrol.,
306, 215–233, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.09.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.09.010</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Rupp, D. E., Mote, P. W., Bindoff, N. L., Stott, P. A., and Robinson, D. A.:
Detection and attribution of observed changes in Northern Hemisphere spring
snow cover, J. Climate, 26, 6904–6914, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Salathé Jr., E. P., Hamlet, A. F., Mass, C. F., Lee, S. Y., Stumbaugh, M.,
and Steed, R.: Estimates of twenty-first-century flood risk in the Pacific
Northwest based on regional climate model simulations, J. Hydrometeorol., 15, 1881–1899, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Schnorbus, M. A., Bennett, K. E., and Werner, A. T.: Quantifying the water
resources impacts of the mountain pine beetle and associated salvage harvest
operations across a range of watershed scales: Hydrologic modelling of the
Fraser River Basin, MBPI Project 7.29, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian
Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Information Report BC-X-423, 64 pp.,
available at: <uri>https://www.pacificclimate.org/resources/publications</uri>
(last access: 18 July 2017), 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Schnorbus, M. A., Bennett, K. E., Werner, A. T., and Berland, A. J.: Hydrologic
Impacts of Climate Change in the Peace, Campbell and Columbia Watersheds, British
Columbia, Canada, PCIC Internal Report, available at: <uri>https://www.pacificclimate.org/resources/publications</uri>
(last access: 28 November 2012), 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Sen, P. K.: Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau, J.
Am. Stat. Assoc., 63, 1379–1389, 1968.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Septer, D.: Flooding and Landslide Events Southern British Columbia 1808–2006,
BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, available as three separate files at:
<uri>https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south1.pdf</uri>,
<uri>https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south2.pdf</uri>, and
<uri>https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south3.pdf</uri>
(last access: 6 June 2016), 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Shabbar, A., Bonsal, B., and Khandekar, M.: Canadian Precipitation Patterns
Associated with the Southern Oscillation, J. Climate, 10, 3016–3027,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010&lt;3016:CPPAWT&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010&lt;3016:CPPAWT&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Shrestha, R. R., Schnorbus, M. A., Werner, A. T., and Berland, A. J.: Modelling
spatial and temporal variability of hydrologic impacts of climate change in the
Fraser River basin, British Columbia, Canada, Hydrol. Process., 26, 1840–1860,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9283" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.9283</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Shrestha, R. R., Peters, D. L., and Schnorbus, M. A.: Evaluating the ability of
a hydrologic model to replicate hydro-ecologically relevant indicators, Hydrol.
Process., 28, 4294–4310, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9997" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.9997</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Shrestha, R. R., Cannon, A. J., Schnorbus, M. A., and Zwiers, F. W.: Projecting
future nonstationary extreme streamflow for the Fraser River, Canada, Climatic
Change, 145, 289–303, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Shumway, R. H. and Stoffer, D. S.: Time series analysis and applications, using
the R statistical package, EZ Edn. 4, Sect. 3.2, available at: <uri>http://www.stat.pitt.edu/stoffer/tsa4/</uri>
(last access: 2 January 2018), 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Smakhtin, V. Y. and Masse, B.: Continuous daily hydrograph simulation using
duration curves of a precipitation index, Hydrol. Process., 14, 1083–1100, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Stewart, I. T.: Changes in snowpack and snowmelt runoff for key mountain regions,
Hydrol. Process., 23, 78–94, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page2309?><ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Surfleet, C. G. and Tullos, D.: Variability in effect of climate change on
rain-on-snow peak flow events in a temperate climate, J. Hydrol., 479, 24–34, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Tan, X. and Gan, T. Y.: Nonstationary analysis of annual maximum streamflow of
Canada, J. Climate, 28, 1788–1805, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Thorne, R. and Woo, M. K.: Streamflow response to climatic variability in a
complex mountainous environment: Fraser River Basin, British Columbia, Canada,
Hydrol. Process., 25, 3076–3085, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>Towler, E., Rajagopalan, B., Gilleland, E., Summers, R. S., Yates, D., and
Katz, R. W.: Modeling hydrologic and water quality extremes in a changing climate:
A statistical approach based on extreme value theory, Water Resour. Res., 46,
W11504, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008876" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009WR008876</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, S. and Russell, H. A.: Forecasting snowmelt-induced flooding using GRACE
satellite data: A case study for the Red River watershed, Can. J. Remote Sens.,
42, 203–213, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>Water Survey of Canada: HYDAT Database, Natl. Water Data Arch., <uri>https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/search/historical_e.html</uri>,
last access: 12 April 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Wever, N., Comola, F., Bavay, M., and Lehning, M.: Simulating the influence of
snow surface processes on soil moisture dynamics and streamflow generation in
an alpine catchment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4053–4071, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4053-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-21-4053-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Whitfield, P. H., Moore, R. D., Fleming, S. W., and Zawadzski, A.: Pacific
Decadal Oscillation and the hydroclimatology of western Canada – Review and
Prospects, Can. Water Resour. J., 35, 1–27, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>Williams, C. J., McNamara, J. P., and Chandler, D. G.: Controls on the temporal
and spatial variability of soil moisture in a mountainous landscape: The
signature of snow and complex terrain, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1325–1336,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-1325-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-13-1325-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>Woo, M. and Thorne, R.: Comment on “Detection of Hydrologic Trends and
Variability,” by Burn, D. H. and Hag Elnur, M. A., 2002, Journal of Hydrology
255, 107–122, J. Hydrol., 277, 150–160, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00079-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00079-9</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Examining controls on peak annual streamflow and floods  in the Fraser River Basin of British Columbia</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The Fraser River Basin (FRB) of British Columbia is one of the largest and
most important watersheds in western North America, and home to a rich
diversity of biological species and economic assets that depend implicitly
upon its extensive riverine habitats. The hydrology of the FRB is dominated
by snow accumulation and melt processes, leading to a prominent annual peak
streamflow invariably occurring in May–July. Nevertheless, while annual peak
daily streamflow (APF) during the spring freshet in the FRB is historically
well correlated with basin-averaged, 1 April snow water equivalent (SWE),
there are numerous occurrences of anomalously large APF in below- or
near-normal SWE years, some of which have resulted in damaging floods in the
region. An imperfect understanding of which other climatic factors contribute
to these anomalously large APFs hinders robust projections of their magnitude
and frequency.</p><p>We employ the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) process-based hydrological
model driven by gridded observations to investigate the key controlling
factors of anomalous APF events in the FRB and four of its subbasins that
contribute nearly 70&thinsp;% of the annual flow at Fraser-Hope. The relative
influence of a set of predictors characterizing the interannual variability
of rainfall, snowfall, snowpack (characterized by the annual maximum value,
SWE<sub>max</sub>), soil moisture and temperature on simulated APF at Hope
(the main outlet of the FRB) and at the subbasin outlets is examined within a
regression framework. The influence of large-scale climate modes of
variability (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the
El Niño–Southern Oscillation – ENSO) on APF magnitude is also assessed,
and placed in context with these more localized controls. The results
indicate that next to SWE<sub>max</sub> (univariate Spearman correlation
with APF of <mover accent="true"><i>ρ</i> <mo form="infix">^</mo> </mover>&thinsp; = &thinsp;0.64; 0.70 (observations; VIC simulation)),
the snowmelt rate (<mover accent="true"><i>ρ</i> <mo form="infix">^</mo> </mover>&thinsp; = &thinsp;0.43 in VIC), the ENSO and PDO indices
(<mover accent="true"><i>ρ</i> <mo form="infix">^</mo> </mover>&thinsp; = &thinsp;−0.40; −0.41) and (<mover accent="true"><i>ρ</i> <mo form="infix">^</mo> </mover>&thinsp; = &thinsp;−0.35;
−0.38), respectively, and rate of warming subsequent to the date of
SWE<sub>max</sub> (<mover accent="true"><i>ρ</i> <mo form="infix">^</mo> </mover>&thinsp; = &thinsp;0.26; 0.38), are the most influential
predictors of APF magnitude in the FRB and its subbasins. The identification
of these controls on annual peak flows in the region may be of use in
understanding seasonal predictions or future projected streamflow changes.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Alexander, M. A.: Extratropical Air-Sea Interaction, SST Variability and the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), in: Climate Dynamics: Why Does Climate Vary?,
edited by: Sun, D. and Bryan, F., AGU Monograph #189, Washington, D.C., 123–148, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Andreadis, K. M., Storck, P., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Modeling snow accumulation
and ablation processes in forested environments, Water Resour. Res., 45, W05429,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007042" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007042</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Andréassian, V., Coron, L., Lerat, J., and Le Moine, N.: Climate elasticity
of streamflow revisited – an elasticity index based on long-term hydrometeorological
records, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4503–4524, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4503-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4503-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Barnett, T. P., Adam, J. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Potential impacts of a
warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions, Nature, 438, 303–309, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Batjes, N. H. (Ed.): A homogenized soil data file for global environmental
research: A subset of FAO, ISRIC and NRCS profiles (Version 1.0), Working Paper
and Preprint 95/10b, International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bawden, A. J., Burn, D. H., and Prowse, T. D.: Recent changes in patterns of
western Canadian river flow and association with climatic drivers, Hydrol. Res.,
46, 551–565, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bazile, R., Boucher, M. A., Perreault, L., and Leconte, R.: Verification of
ECMWF System 4 for seasonal hydrological forecasting in a northern climate,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5747–5762, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5747-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5747-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
BC MOE – British Columbia Ministry of the Environment: Comprehensive Review of
Fraser River at Hope Flood Hydrology and Flows – Scoping Study and Final Report,
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, available at: <a href="http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/pdfs_word/review_fraser_flood_flows_hope.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/pdfs_word/review_fraser_flood_flows_hope.pdf</a>
(last access: 6 June 2017), 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
BC MOE – British Columbia Ministry of the Environment: Indicators of Climate
Change for British Columbia: 2016 Update, available at: <a href="http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-and-reporting/reporting/envreportbc/archived-reports/climate-change/climatechangeindicators-13sept2016_final.pdf" target="_blank">http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-and-reporting/reporting/envreportbc/archived-reports/climate-change/climatechangeindicators-13sept2016_final.pdf</a>
(last access: 19 June 2017), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
BC River Forecast Centre:
<a href="https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/drought-flooding-dikes-dams/river-forecast-centre" target="_blank">https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/drought-flooding-dikes-dams/river-forecast-centre</a>,
last access: 12 April 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Berg, A. A. and Mulroy, K. A.: Streamflow predictability in the Saskatchewan/Nelson
River basin given macroscale estimates of the initial soil moisture status,
Hydrolog. Sci. J., 51, 642–654, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Bonsal, B. and Shabbar, A.: Impacts of Large-Scale Circulation Variability on
Low Streamflows Over Canada: A Review, Can. Water Res. J., 33, 137–154,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3302137" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3302137</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
British Columbia River Forecast Centre: Flow Forecasting for the Lower Fraser
River (from Hope to the Ocean), internal report, available at: <a href="http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/freshet/lower_fraser/Flow Forecasting for the 20Lower Fraser River.pdf" target="_blank">http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/freshet/lower_fraser/Flow Forecasting for the 20Lower Fraser River.pdf</a>
(last access: 24 April 2017), 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Burn, D. H. and Hag Elnur, M. A.: Detection of hydrologic trends and variability,
J. Hydrol., 255, 107–122, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Cherkauer, K. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Hydrologic effects of frozen soils in
the upper Mississippi River basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 19599–19610, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Cherkauer, K. A. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Simulation of spatial variability in
snow and frozen soil, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8858, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003575" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003575</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Coles, A. E., Appels, W. M., McConkey, B. G., and McDonnell, J. J.: The hierarchy
of controls on snowmelt–runoff generation over seasonally-frozen hillslopes,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-564" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-564</a>, in review, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Cunderlik, J. M. and Ouarda, T. B.: Trends in the timing and magnitude of floods
in Canada, J. Hydrol., 375, 471–480, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Dai, A.: Temperature and pressure dependence of the rain-snow phase transition
over land and ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L12802, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033295" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033295</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Daly, C., Halbleib, M., Smith, J. I., Gibson, W. P., Doggett, M. K., Taylor, G.
H., Curtis, J., and Pasteris, P. P.: Physiographically sensitive mapping of
climatological temperature and precipitation across the coterminous United
States, Int. J. Climatol., 28, 2031–2064, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1688" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1688</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Danco, J. F., DeAngelis, A. M., Raney, B. K., and Broccoli, A. J.: Effects of
a Warming Climate on Daily Snowfall Events in the Northern Hemisphere, J. Climate,
29, 6295–6318, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
DeBeer, C. M., Wheater, H. S., Carey, S. K., and Chun, K. P.: Recent climatic,
cryospheric, and hydrological changes over the interior of western Canada: a
review and synthesis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1573–1598, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1573-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1573-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Déry, S. J., Hernández-Henríquez, M. A., Owens, P. N., Parkes, M. W.,
and Petticrew, E. L.: A century of hydrological variability and trends in the
Fraser River Basin, Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 024019, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024019</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Duan, K., Sun, G., McNulty, S. G., Caldwell, P. V., Cohen, E. C., Sun, S.,
Aldridge, H. D., Zhou, D., Zhang, L., and Zhang, Y.: Future shift of the relative
roles of precipitation and temperature in controlling annual runoff in the
conterminous United States, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5517–5529,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5517-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5517-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Eaton, B. and Moore, R. D.: Regional hydrology, in: Compendium of Forest Hydrology
and Geomorphology in British Columbia, Land Manag. Handb. 66, edited by: Pike,
R. G., Redding, T. E., Moore, R. D., Winker, R. D., and Bladon, K. D., B.C.
Min. For. Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, BC and FORREX Forum for Research
and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, BC, <a href="http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh66.htm" target="_blank">http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh66.htm</a>
(last access: 17 August 2016), 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization: The digital soil map of the world,
version 3.5, FAO, Rome, <a href="http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=14116" target="_blank">http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=14116</a>
(last access: 10 April 2018), 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Fedora, M. A. and Beschta, R. L.: Storm runoff simulation using an antecedent
precipitation index (API) model, J. Hydrol., 112, 121–133, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Fraser Basin Council: The Fraser: A Canadian Heritage River, 10-Year Monitoring
Report, available at: <a href="http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/resources_publications.html" target="_blank">http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/resources_publications.html</a>
(last access: 10 April 2018), 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Gan, T. Y., Barry, R. G., Gizaw, M., Gobena, A., and Balaji, R.: Changes in
North American snowpacks for 1979–2007 detected from the snow water equivalent
data of SMMR and SSM/I passive microwave and related climatic factors, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 7682–7697, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
GSD – Global Soil Data Task: Global Soil Data Products CD-ROM (IGBP-DIS), CD-ROM,
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Data and Information System, Potsdam,
Germany, available at Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Center,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Gobena, A. K. and Gan, T. Y.: Low-Frequency Variability in Southwestern Canadian
Streamflow: Links with Large-Scale Climate, Int. J. Climatol., 26, 1843–1869,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1336" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1336</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Gurrapu, S., St-Jacques, J.-M., Sauchyn, D. J., and Hodder, K. R.: The Influence
of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on Annual Floods in the Rivers of Western
Canada, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 52, 1031–1045, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12433" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12433</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Hamann, A., Wang, T., Spittlehouse, D. L., and Murdock, T. Q.: A comprehensive,
high-resolution database of historical and projected climate surfaces for western
North America, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94, 1307–1309, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Harpold, A. A. and Molotch, N. P.: Sensitivity of soil water availability to
changing snowmelt timing in the western U.S., Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 8011–8020,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065855" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065855</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Hernández-Henríquez, M. A., Sharma, A. R., and Déry, S. J.:
Variability and trends in runoff in the rivers of British Columbia's Coast and
Insular Mountains, Hydrol. Process., 31, 3269–3282, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Hsieh, W. W. and Tang, B.: Interannual variability of accumulated snow in the
Columbia basin, British Columbia, Water Resour. Res., 37, 1753–1759, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Islam, S. U. and Déry, S. J.: Evaluating uncertainties in modelling the
snow hydrology of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia, Canada, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1827–1847, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1827-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1827-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Jenicek, M., Seibert, J., Zappa, M., Staudinger, M., and Jonas, T.: Importance
of maximum snow accumulation for summer low flows in humid catchments, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 859–874, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-859-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-859-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Jeong, D. I., Sushama, L., and Khaliq, M. N.: Attribution of spring snow water
equivalent (SWE) changes over the northern hemisphere to anthropogenic effects,
Clim. Dynam., 48, 3645–3658, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Jiménez Cisneros, B. E., Oki, T., Arnell, N. W., Benito, G., Cogley, J. G.,
Döll, P., Jiang, T., and Mwakalila, S. S.: Freshwater resources, in: Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Field, C. B., Barros, V.
R., Dokken, D. J., Mach, K. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Bilir, T. E., Chatterjee,
M., Ebi, K. L., Estrada, Y. O., Genova, R. C., Girma, B., Kissel, E. S., Levy,
A. N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P. R., and White, L. L., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 229–269, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Kang, D. H., Gao, H., Shi, X., ul Islam, S., and Déry, S. J.: Impacts of a
rapidly declining mountain snowpack on streamflow timing in Canada's Fraser
River basin, Scient. Rep., 6, 19299, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19299" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19299</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Knowles, N.: Trends in Snow Cover and Related Quantities at Weather Stations
in the Conterminous United States, J. Clim., 28, 7518-7528, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Koster, R. D., Mahanama, S. P., Livneh, B., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Reichle, R.
H.: Skill in streamflow forecasts derived from large-scale estimates of soil
moisture and snow, Nat. Geosci., 3, 613–616, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., and Burges, S. J.: A simple
hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general
circulation models, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 14415–14428, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00483" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00483</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Lohmann, D., Nolte-Holube, R., and Raschke, E.: A large-scale horizontal routing
model to be coupled to land surface parametrization schemes, Tellus A, 48, 708–721, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Lohmann, D., Raschke, E., Nijssen, B., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Regional scale
hydrology: I. Formulation of the VIC-2L model coupled to a routing model,
Hydrolog. Sci. J., 43, 131–141, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Mahanama, S., Livneh, B., Koster, R., Lettenmaier, D., and Reichle, R.: Soil
moisture, snow, and seasonal streamflow forecasts in the United States, J.
Hydrometeorol., 13, 189–203, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Matti, B., Dahlke, H. E., and Lyon, S. W.: On the variability of cold region
flooding, J. Hydrol., 534, 669–679, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Maurer, E. P. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Predictability of seasonal runoff in the
Mississippi River basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8607, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002555" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002555</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
McCabe, G. J., Clarke, M. P., and Hay, L. E.: Rain-on-snow events in the Western
United States, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 319–328, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-3-319" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-3-319</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Milly, P. C. D., Dunne, K. A., and Vecchia, A. V.: Global pattern of trends in
streamflow and water availability in a changing climate, Nature, 438, 347–350, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, R. D.: Hydrology and water supply in the Fraser River basi, in: Water in
Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin,
edited by: Dorcey, A. H. J. and Griggs, J. R., Westwater Research Centre, The
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 21–40, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, R. D. and McKendry, I. G.: Spring snowpack anomaly patterns and winter
climatic variability, British Columbia, Canada, Water Resour. Res., 32, 623–632, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Najafi, M. R., Zwiers, F., and Gillett, N.: Attribution of the Observed Spring
Snowpack Decline in British Columbia to Anthropogenic Climate Change, J. Climate,
30, 4113–4130, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Neiman, P. J., Schick, L. J., Ralph, F. M., Hughes, M., and Wick, G. A.:
Flooding in western Washington: The connection to atmospheric rivers, J.
Hydrometeorol., 12, 1337–1358, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium: Station Hydrologic Model Output, University
of Victoria, available at: <a href="https://www.pacificclimate.org/data/station-hydrologic-model-output/" target="_blank">https://www.pacificclimate.org/data/station-hydrologic-model-output/</a>
(last access: 10 May 2016), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium Data Portal: <a href="https://www.pacificclimate.org/data" target="_blank">https://www.pacificclimate.org/data</a>,
last access: 12 April 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Padilla, A., Rasouli, M., and Déry, S. J: Impacts of variability and trends
in runoff and water temperature on salmon migration in the Fraser River Basin,
Canada, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 60, 523–533, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Park, D. and Markus, M.: Analysis of a changing hydrologic flood regime using
the Variable Infiltration Capacity model, J. Hydrol., 515, 267–280, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Pike, R. G., Bennett, K. E., Redding, T. E., Werner, A. T., Spittlehouse, D. L.,
Moore, R. D., Murdock, T. Q., Beckers, J., Smerdon, B. D., Bladon, K. D., Foord,
V. N., Campbell, D. A., and Tschaplinski, P. J.: Climate change effects on
watershed processes in British Columbia, in: Compendium of Forest Hydrology and
Geomorphology in British Columbia, Land Manag. Handb. 66, edited by: Pike, R. G.,
Redding, T. E., Moore, R. D., Winker, R. D., and Bladon, K. D., B.C. Min. For.
Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, BC and FORREX Forum for Research and Extension
in Natural Resources, Kamloops, BC, <a href="http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh66.htm" target="_blank">http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh66.htm</a>
(last access: 17 August 2016), 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation
for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, available at: <a href="https://www.R-project.org/" target="_blank">https://www.R-project.org/</a>,
last access: 18 October 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Reager, J. T., Thomas, B. F., and Famiglietti, J. S.: River basin flood potential
inferred using GRACE gravity observations at several months lead time, Nat. Geosci.,
7, 588–592, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Rood, S. B., Samuelson, G. M., Weber, J. K., and Wywrot, K. A.: Twentieth-century
decline in streamflows from the hydro- graphic apex of North America, J. Hydrol.,
306, 215–233, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.09.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.09.010</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Rupp, D. E., Mote, P. W., Bindoff, N. L., Stott, P. A., and Robinson, D. A.:
Detection and attribution of observed changes in Northern Hemisphere spring
snow cover, J. Climate, 26, 6904–6914, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Salathé Jr., E. P., Hamlet, A. F., Mass, C. F., Lee, S. Y., Stumbaugh, M.,
and Steed, R.: Estimates of twenty-first-century flood risk in the Pacific
Northwest based on regional climate model simulations, J. Hydrometeorol., 15, 1881–1899, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Schnorbus, M. A., Bennett, K. E., and Werner, A. T.: Quantifying the water
resources impacts of the mountain pine beetle and associated salvage harvest
operations across a range of watershed scales: Hydrologic modelling of the
Fraser River Basin, MBPI Project 7.29, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian
Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Information Report BC-X-423, 64&thinsp;pp.,
available at: <a href="https://www.pacificclimate.org/resources/publications" target="_blank">https://www.pacificclimate.org/resources/publications</a>
(last access: 18 July 2017), 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Schnorbus, M. A., Bennett, K. E., Werner, A. T., and Berland, A. J.: Hydrologic
Impacts of Climate Change in the Peace, Campbell and Columbia Watersheds, British
Columbia, Canada, PCIC Internal Report, available at: <a href="https://www.pacificclimate.org/resources/publications" target="_blank">https://www.pacificclimate.org/resources/publications</a>
(last access: 28 November 2012), 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Sen, P. K.: Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau, J.
Am. Stat. Assoc., 63, 1379–1389, 1968.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Septer, D.: Flooding and Landslide Events Southern British Columbia 1808–2006,
BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, available as three separate files at:
<a href="https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south1.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south1.pdf</a>,
<a href="https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south2.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south2.pdf</a>, and
<a href="https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south3.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib106111south3.pdf</a>
(last access: 6 June 2016), 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Shabbar, A., Bonsal, B., and Khandekar, M.: Canadian Precipitation Patterns
Associated with the Southern Oscillation, J. Climate, 10, 3016–3027,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010&lt;3016:CPPAWT&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010&lt;3016:CPPAWT&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Shrestha, R. R., Schnorbus, M. A., Werner, A. T., and Berland, A. J.: Modelling
spatial and temporal variability of hydrologic impacts of climate change in the
Fraser River basin, British Columbia, Canada, Hydrol. Process., 26, 1840–1860,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9283" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9283</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Shrestha, R. R., Peters, D. L., and Schnorbus, M. A.: Evaluating the ability of
a hydrologic model to replicate hydro-ecologically relevant indicators, Hydrol.
Process., 28, 4294–4310, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9997" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9997</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Shrestha, R. R., Cannon, A. J., Schnorbus, M. A., and Zwiers, F. W.: Projecting
future nonstationary extreme streamflow for the Fraser River, Canada, Climatic
Change, 145, 289–303, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Shumway, R. H. and Stoffer, D. S.: Time series analysis and applications, using
the R statistical package, EZ Edn. 4, Sect. 3.2, available at: <a href="http://www.stat.pitt.edu/stoffer/tsa4/" target="_blank">http://www.stat.pitt.edu/stoffer/tsa4/</a>
(last access: 2 January 2018), 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Smakhtin, V. Y. and Masse, B.: Continuous daily hydrograph simulation using
duration curves of a precipitation index, Hydrol. Process., 14, 1083–1100, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Stewart, I. T.: Changes in snowpack and snowmelt runoff for key mountain regions,
Hydrol. Process., 23, 78–94, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Surfleet, C. G. and Tullos, D.: Variability in effect of climate change on
rain-on-snow peak flow events in a temperate climate, J. Hydrol., 479, 24–34, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Tan, X. and Gan, T. Y.: Nonstationary analysis of annual maximum streamflow of
Canada, J. Climate, 28, 1788–1805, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Thorne, R. and Woo, M. K.: Streamflow response to climatic variability in a
complex mountainous environment: Fraser River Basin, British Columbia, Canada,
Hydrol. Process., 25, 3076–3085, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Towler, E., Rajagopalan, B., Gilleland, E., Summers, R. S., Yates, D., and
Katz, R. W.: Modeling hydrologic and water quality extremes in a changing climate:
A statistical approach based on extreme value theory, Water Resour. Res., 46,
W11504, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008876" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008876</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, S. and Russell, H. A.: Forecasting snowmelt-induced flooding using GRACE
satellite data: A case study for the Red River watershed, Can. J. Remote Sens.,
42, 203–213, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Water Survey of Canada: HYDAT Database, Natl. Water Data Arch., <a href="https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/search/historical_e.html" target="_blank">https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/search/historical_e.html</a>,
last access: 12 April 2018.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Wever, N., Comola, F., Bavay, M., and Lehning, M.: Simulating the influence of
snow surface processes on soil moisture dynamics and streamflow generation in
an alpine catchment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4053–4071, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4053-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4053-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Whitfield, P. H., Moore, R. D., Fleming, S. W., and Zawadzski, A.: Pacific
Decadal Oscillation and the hydroclimatology of western Canada – Review and
Prospects, Can. Water Resour. J., 35, 1–27, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, C. J., McNamara, J. P., and Chandler, D. G.: Controls on the temporal
and spatial variability of soil moisture in a mountainous landscape: The
signature of snow and complex terrain, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1325–1336,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-1325-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-1325-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Woo, M. and Thorne, R.: Comment on “Detection of Hydrologic Trends and
Variability,” by Burn, D. H. and Hag Elnur, M. A., 2002, Journal of Hydrology
255, 107–122, J. Hydrol., 277, 150–160, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00079-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00079-9</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
