Abstract Operational flood forecasting in Canada is a provincial responsibility that is carried out by several entities across the country. However, the increasing costs and impacts of floods require better and nationally coordinated flood prediction systems. A more coherent flood forecasting framework for Canada can enable implementing advanced prediction capabilities across the different entities with responsibility for flood forecasting. Recently, the Canadian meteorological and hydrological services were tasked to develop a national flow guidance system. Alongside this initiative, the Global Water Futures program has been advancing cold regions process understanding, hydrological modeling, and forecasting. A community of practice was established for industry, academia, and decision‐makers to share viewpoints on hydrological challenges. Taken together, these initiatives are paving the way towards a national flood forecasting framework. In this article, forecasting challenges are identified (with a focus on cold regions), and recommendations are made to promote the creation of this framework. These include the need for cooperation, well‐defined governance, and better knowledge mobilization. Opportunities and challenges posed by the increasing data availability globally are also highlighted. Advances in each of these areas are positioning Canada as a major contributor to the international operational flood forecasting landscape. This article highlights a route towards the deployment of capacities across large geographical domains.

In mountains, the precipitation phase greatly varies in space and time and affects the evolution of the snow cover. Snowpack models usually rely on precipitation-phase partitioning methods (PPMs) that use near-surface variables. These PPMs ignore conditions above the surface thus limiting their ability to predict the precipitation phase at the surface. In this study, the impact on snowpack simulations of atmospheric-based PPMs, incorporating upper atmospheric information, is tested using the snowpack scheme Crocus. Crocus is run at 2.5-km grid spacing over the mountains of southwestern Canada and northwestern United States and is driven by meteorological fields from an atmospheric model at the same resolution. Two atmospheric-based PPMs were considered from the atmospheric model: the output from a detailed microphysics scheme and a post-processing algorithm determining the snow level and the associated precipitation phase. Two ground-based PPMs were also included as lower and upper benchmarks: a single air temperature threshold at 0°C and a PPM using wet-bulb temperature. Compared to the upper benchmark, the snow-level based PPM improved the estimation of snowfall occurrence by 5% and the simulation of snow water equivalent (SWE) by 9% during the snow melting season. In contrast, due to missing processes, the microphysics scheme decreased performances in phase estimate and SWE simulations compared to the upper benchmark. These results highlight the need for detailed evaluation of the precipitation phase from atmospheric models and the benefit for mountain snow hydrology of the post-processed snow level. The limitations to drive snowpack models at slope scale are also discussed.

In mountains, the precipitation phase greatly varies in space and time and affects the evolution of the snow cover. Snowpack models usually rely on precipitation-phase partitioning methods (PPMs) that use near-surface variables. These PPMs ignore conditions above the surface thus limiting their ability to predict the precipitation phase at the surface. In this study, the impact on snowpack simulations of atmospheric-based PPMs, incorporating upper atmospheric information, is tested using the snowpack scheme Crocus. Crocus is run at 2.5-km grid spacing over the mountains of southwestern Canada and northwestern United States and is driven by meteorological fields from an atmospheric model at the same resolution. Two atmospheric-based PPMs were considered from the atmospheric model: the output from a detailed microphysics scheme and a post-processing algorithm determining the snow level and the associated precipitation phase. Two ground-based PPMs were also included as lower and upper benchmarks: a single air temperature threshold at 0°C and a PPM using wet-bulb temperature. Compared to the upper benchmark, the snow-level based PPM improved the estimation of snowfall occurrence by 5% and the simulation of snow water equivalent (SWE) by 9% during the snow melting season. In contrast, due to missing processes, the microphysics scheme decreased performances in phase estimate and SWE simulations compared to the upper benchmark. These results highlight the need for detailed evaluation of the precipitation phase from atmospheric models and the benefit for mountain snow hydrology of the post-processed snow level. The limitations to drive snowpack models at slope scale are also discussed.

In mountains, the precipitation phase greatly varies in space and time and affects the evolution of the snow cover. Snowpack models usually rely on precipitation-phase partitioning methods (PPMs) that use near-surface variables. These PPMs ignore conditions above the surface thus limiting their ability to predict the precipitation phase at the surface. In this study, the impact on snowpack simulations of atmospheric-based PPMs, incorporating upper atmospheric information, is tested using the snowpack scheme Crocus. Crocus is run at 2.5-km grid spacing over the mountains of southwestern Canada and northwestern United States and is driven by meteorological fields from an atmospheric model at the same resolution. Two atmospheric-based PPMs were considered from the atmospheric model: the output from a detailed microphysics scheme and a post-processing algorithm determining the snow level and the associated precipitation phase. Two ground-based PPMs were also included as lower and upper benchmarks: a single air temperature threshold at 0°C and a PPM using wet-bulb temperature. Compared to the upper benchmark, the snow-level based PPM improved the estimation of snowfall occurrence by 5% and the simulation of snow water equivalent (SWE) by 9% during the snow melting season. In contrast, due to missing processes, the microphysics scheme decreased performances in phase estimate and SWE simulations compared to the upper benchmark. These results highlight the need for detailed evaluation of the precipitation phase from atmospheric models and the benefit for mountain snow hydrology of the post-processed snow level. The limitations to drive snowpack models at slope scale are also discussed.

Abstract. Model intercomparison studies are carried out to test and compare the simulated outputs of various model setups over the same study domain. The Great Lakes region is such a domain of high public interest as it not only resembles a challenging region to model with its trans-boundary location, strong lake effects, and regions of strong human impact but is also one of the most densely populated areas in the United States and Canada. This study brought together a wide range of researchers setting up their models of choice in a highly standardized experimental setup using the same geophysical datasets, forcings, common routing product, and locations of performance evaluation across the 1 million square kilometer study domain. The study comprises 13 models covering a wide range of model types from Machine Learning based, basin-wise, subbasin-based, and gridded models that are either locally or globally calibrated or calibrated for one of each of six predefined regions of the watershed. Unlike most hydrologically focused model intercomparisons, this study not only compares models regarding their capability to simulated streamflow (Q) but also evaluates the quality of simulated actual evapotranspiration (AET), surface soil moisture (SSM), and snow water equivalent (SWE). The latter three outputs are compared against gridded reference datasets. The comparisons are performed in two ways: either by aggregating model outputs and the reference to basin-level or by regridding all model outputs to the reference grid and comparing the model simulations at each grid-cell. The main results of this study are: (1) The comparison of models regarding streamflow reveals the superior quality of the Machine Learning based model in all experiments performance; even for the most challenging spatio-temporal validation the ML model outperforms any other physically based model. (2) While the locally calibrated models lead to good performance in calibration and temporal validation (even outperforming several regionally calibrated models), they lose performance when they are transferred to locations the model has not been calibrated on. This is likely to be improved with more advanced strategies to transfer these models in space. (3) The regionally calibrated models – while losing less performance in spatial and spatio-temporal validation than locally calibrated models – exhibit low performances in highly regulated and urban areas as well as agricultural regions in the US. (4) Comparisons of additional model outputs (AET, SSM, SWE) against gridded reference datasets show that aggregating model outputs and the reference dataset to basin scale can lead to different conclusions than a comparison at the native grid scale. This is especially true for variables with large spatial variability such as SWE. (5) A multi-objective-based analysis of the model performances across all variables (Q, AET, SSM, SWE) reveals overall excellent performing locally calibrated models (i.e., HYMOD2-lumped) as well as regionally calibrated models (i.e., MESH-SVS-Raven and GEM-Hydro-Watroute) due to varying reasons. The Machine Learning based model was not included here as is not setup to simulate AET, SSM, and SWE. (6) All basin-aggregated model outputs and observations for the model variables evaluated in this study are available on an interactive website that enables users to visualize results and download data and model outputs.

In mountains, the precipitation phase greatly varies in space and time and affects the evolution of the snow cover. Snowpack models usually rely on precipitation-phase partitioning methods (PPMs) that use near-surface variables. These PPMs ignore conditions above the surface thus limiting their ability to predict the precipitation phase at the surface. In this study, the impact on snowpack simulations of atmospheric-based PPMs, incorporating upper atmospheric information, is tested using the snowpack scheme Crocus. Crocus is run at 2.5-km grid spacing over the mountains of southwestern Canada and northwestern United States and is driven by meteorological fields from an atmospheric model at the same resolution. Two atmospheric-based PPMs were considered from the atmospheric model: the output from a detailed microphysics scheme and a post-processing algorithm determining the snow level and the associated precipitation phase. Two ground-based PPMs were also included as lower and upper benchmarks: a single air temperature threshold at 0°C and a PPM using wet-bulb temperature. Compared to the upper benchmark, the snow-level based PPM improved the estimation of snowfall occurrence by 5% and the simulation of snow water equivalent (SWE) by 9% during the snow melting season. In contrast, due to missing processes, the microphysics scheme decreased performances in phase estimate and SWE simulations compared to the upper benchmark. These results highlight the need for detailed evaluation of the precipitation phase from atmospheric models and the benefit for mountain snow hydrology of the post-processed snow level. The limitations to drive snowpack models at slope scale are also discussed.

In mountains, the precipitation phase greatly varies in space and time and affects the evolution of the snow cover. Snowpack models usually rely on precipitation-phase partitioning methods (PPMs) that use near-surface variables. These PPMs ignore conditions above the surface thus limiting their ability to predict the precipitation phase at the surface. In this study, the impact on snowpack simulations of atmospheric-based PPMs, incorporating upper atmospheric information, is tested using the snowpack scheme Crocus. Crocus is run at 2.5-km grid spacing over the mountains of southwestern Canada and northwestern United States and is driven by meteorological fields from an atmospheric model at the same resolution. Two atmospheric-based PPMs were considered from the atmospheric model: the output from a detailed microphysics scheme and a post-processing algorithm determining the snow level and the associated precipitation phase. Two ground-based PPMs were also included as lower and upper benchmarks: a single air temperature threshold at 0°C and a PPM using wet-bulb temperature. Compared to the upper benchmark, the snow-level based PPM improved the estimation of snowfall occurrence by 5% and the simulation of snow water equivalent (SWE) by 9% during the snow melting season. In contrast, due to missing processes, the microphysics scheme decreased performances in phase estimate and SWE simulations compared to the upper benchmark. These results highlight the need for detailed evaluation of the precipitation phase from atmospheric models and the benefit for mountain snow hydrology of the post-processed snow level. The limitations to drive snowpack models at slope scale are also discussed.

In mountains, the precipitation phase greatly varies in space and time and affects the evolution of the snow cover. Snowpack models usually rely on precipitation-phase partitioning methods (PPMs) that use near-surface variables. These PPMs ignore conditions above the surface thus limiting their ability to predict the precipitation phase at the surface. In this study, the impact on snowpack simulations of atmospheric-based PPMs, incorporating upper atmospheric information, is tested using the snowpack scheme Crocus. Crocus is run at 2.5-km grid spacing over the mountains of southwestern Canada and northwestern United States and is driven by meteorological fields from an atmospheric model at the same resolution. Two atmospheric-based PPMs were considered from the atmospheric model: the output from a detailed microphysics scheme and a post-processing algorithm determining the snow level and the associated precipitation phase. Two ground-based PPMs were also included as lower and upper benchmarks: a single air temperature threshold at 0°C and a PPM using wet-bulb temperature. Compared to the upper benchmark, the snow-level based PPM improved the estimation of snowfall occurrence by 5% and the simulation of snow water equivalent (SWE) by 9% during the snow melting season. In contrast, due to missing processes, the microphysics scheme decreased performances in phase estimate and SWE simulations compared to the upper benchmark. These results highlight the need for detailed evaluation of the precipitation phase from atmospheric models and the benefit for mountain snow hydrology of the post-processed snow level. The limitations to drive snowpack models at slope scale are also discussed.

Abstract. Model intercomparison studies are carried out to test and compare the simulated outputs of various model setups over the same study domain. The Great Lakes region is such a domain of high public interest as it not only resembles a challenging region to model with its transboundary location, strong lake effects, and regions of strong human impact but is also one of the most densely populated areas in the USA and Canada. This study brought together a wide range of researchers setting up their models of choice in a highly standardized experimental setup using the same geophysical datasets, forcings, common routing product, and locations of performance evaluation across the 1×106 km2 study domain. The study comprises 13 models covering a wide range of model types from machine-learning-based, basin-wise, subbasin-based, and gridded models that are either locally or globally calibrated or calibrated for one of each of the six predefined regions of the watershed. Unlike most hydrologically focused model intercomparisons, this study not only compares models regarding their capability to simulate streamflow (Q) but also evaluates the quality of simulated actual evapotranspiration (AET), surface soil moisture (SSM), and snow water equivalent (SWE). The latter three outputs are compared against gridded reference datasets. The comparisons are performed in two ways – either by aggregating model outputs and the reference to basin level or by regridding all model outputs to the reference grid and comparing the model simulations at each grid-cell. The main results of this study are as follows: The comparison of models regarding streamflow reveals the superior quality of the machine-learning-based model in the performance of all experiments; even for the most challenging spatiotemporal validation, the machine learning (ML) model outperforms any other physically based model. While the locally calibrated models lead to good performance in calibration and temporal validation (even outperforming several regionally calibrated models), they lose performance when they are transferred to locations that the model has not been calibrated on. This is likely to be improved with more advanced strategies to transfer these models in space. The regionally calibrated models – while losing less performance in spatial and spatiotemporal validation than locally calibrated models – exhibit low performances in highly regulated and urban areas and agricultural regions in the USA. Comparisons of additional model outputs (AET, SSM, and SWE) against gridded reference datasets show that aggregating model outputs and the reference dataset to the basin scale can lead to different conclusions than a comparison at the native grid scale. The latter is deemed preferable, especially for variables with large spatial variability such as SWE. A multi-objective-based analysis of the model performances across all variables (Q, AET, SSM, and SWE) reveals overall well-performing locally calibrated models (i.e., HYMOD2-lumped) and regionally calibrated models (i.e., MESH-SVS-Raven and GEM-Hydro-Watroute) due to varying reasons. The machine-learning-based model was not included here as it is not set up to simulate AET, SSM, and SWE. All basin-aggregated model outputs and observations for the model variables evaluated in this study are available on an interactive website that enables users to visualize results and download the data and model outputs.

AbstractHydrologic model intercomparison studies help to evaluate the agility of models to simulate variables such as streamflow, evaporation, and soil moisture. This study is the third in a sequen...

Abstract. From 19 to 22 June 2013, intense rainfall and concurrent snowmelt led to devastating floods in the Canadian Rockies, foothills and downstream areas of southern Alberta and southeastern British Columbia, Canada. Such an event is typical of late-spring floods in cold-region mountain headwater, combining intense precipitation with rapid melting of late-lying snowpack, and represents a challenge for hydrological forecasting systems. This study investigated the factors governing the ability to predict such an event. Three sources of uncertainty, other than the hydrological model processes and parameters, were considered: (i) the resolution of the atmospheric forcings, (ii) the snow and soil moisture initial conditions (ICs) and (iii) the representation of the soil texture. The Global Environmental Multiscale hydrological modeling platform (GEM-Hydro), running at a 1 km grid spacing, was used to simulate hydrometeorological conditions in the main headwater basins of southern Alberta during this event. The GEM atmospheric model and the Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) system were combined to generate atmospheric forcing at 10, 2.5 and 1 km over southern Alberta. Gridded estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) from the Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS) were used to replace the model SWE at peak snow accumulation and generate alternative snow and soil moisture ICs before the event. Two global soil texture datasets were also used. Overall 12 simulations of the flooding event were carried out. Results show that the resolution of the atmospheric forcing affected primarily the flood volume and peak flow in all river basins due to a more accurate estimation of intensity and total amount of precipitation during the flooding event provided by CaPA analysis at convection-permitting scales (2.5 and 1 km). Basin-averaged snowmelt also changed with the resolution due to changes in near-surface wind and resulting turbulent fluxes contributing to snowmelt. Snow ICs were the main sources of uncertainty for half of the headwater basins. Finally, the soil texture had less impact and only affected peak flow magnitude and timing for some stations. These results highlight the need to combine atmospheric forcing at convection-permitting scales with high-quality snow ICs to provide accurate streamflow predictions during late-spring floods in cold-region mountain river basins. The predictive improvement by inclusion of high-elevation weather stations in the precipitation analysis and the need for accurate mountain snow information suggest the necessity of integrated observation and prediction systems for forecasting extreme events in mountain river basins.