Development of Projected Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Welland, Ontario, Canada

Similar documents
Supplementary Figure S1: Uncertainty of runoff changes Assessments of. R [mm/yr/k] for each model and the ensemble mean.

Experiments with Statistical Downscaling of Precipitation for South Florida Region: Issues & Observations

URBAN DRAINAGE MODELLING

CGE TRAINING MATERIALS ON VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION ASSESSMENT. Climate change scenarios

Climate Change Impact on Intensity-Duration- Frequency Curves in Ho Chi Minh city

INVESTIGATING THE SIMULATIONS OF HYDROLOGICAL and ENERGY CYCLES OF IPCC GCMS OVER THE CONGO AND UPPER BLUE NILE BASINS

Appendix E. OURANOS Climate Change Summary Report

Altiplano Climate. Making Sense of 21st century Scenarios. A. Seth J. Thibeault C. Valdivia

Climate Change Scenario, Climate Model and Future Climate Projection

Climate Change Impact on Intensity-Duration- Frequency Curves in Ho Chi Minh city

Impacts of Climate Change on Surface Water in the Onkaparinga Catchment

Generating projected rainfall time series at sub-hourly time scales using statistical and stochastic downscaling methodologies

Karonga Climate Profile: Full Technical Version

Training: Climate Change Scenarios for PEI. Training Session April Neil Comer Research Climatologist

Chapter 7 Projections Based on Downscaling

The impact of climate change on wind energy resources

Climate Risk Profile for Samoa

Future Weather in Toronto and the GTA

Future freshwater stress for island populations

MULTI MODEL ENSEMBLE FOR ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE HYDROLOGY OF A SOUTH INDIAN RIVER BASIN


The ENSEMBLES Project

Updated rainfall intensity duration frequency curves for the City of London under the changing climate

THE CANADIAN CENTRE FOR CLIMATE MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Multi-model climate change scenarios for southwest Western Australia and potential impacts on streamflow

technological change and economic growth more fragmented; slower, higher population growth middle emissions path

Twenty-first-century projections of North Atlantic tropical storms from CMIP5 models

Detection and Attribution of Climate Change. ... in Indices of Extremes?

How reliable are selected methods of projections of future thermal conditions? A case from Poland

1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Impacts Assessment

Southern New England s Changing Climate. Raymond S. Bradley and Liang Ning Northeast Climate Science Center University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Statistical downscaling methods for climate change impact assessment on urban rainfall extremes for cities in tropical developing countries A review

Statistical downscaling of multivariate wave climate using a weather type approach

Supplementary Material: Characterizing Changes in Drought Risk for the United States from Climate Change [1] October 12, 2010

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3, Issue 5, May ISSN

Future pattern of Asian drought under global warming scenario

A Study of the Uncertainty in Future Caribbean Climate Using the PRECIS Regional Climate Model

DOWNSCALING INTERCOMPARISON PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT

Impacts of climate change on flooding in the river Meuse

Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region. Technical Appendix Climate Change Projections CLIMATE MODELS

Changes in Frequency of Extreme Wind Events in the Arctic

Climatic and Ecological Conditions in the Klamath Basin of Southern Oregon and Northern California: Projections for the Future

Climate Change Impact Analysis

FUTURE CARIBBEAN CLIMATES FROM STATISTICAL AND DYNAMICAL DOWNSCALING

Annex I to Target Area Assessments

peak half-hourly New South Wales

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON URBAN DRAINAGE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Cape Verde. General Climate. Recent Climate. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles. Temperature. Precipitation

Regional climate-change downscaling for hydrological applications using a nonhomogeneous hidden Markov model

Forecasting Local Climate for Policy Analysis

A Spatial-Temporal Downscaling Approach To Construction Of Rainfall Intensity-Duration- Frequency Relations In The Context Of Climate Change

Downscaled Climate Change Projection for the Department of Energy s Savannah River Site

The 20th century warming and projections for the 21st century climate in the region of the Ukrainian Antarctic station Akademik Vernadsky

Low-level wind, moisture, and precipitation relationships near the South Pacific Convergence Zone in CMIP3/CMIP5 models

Correction notice. Nature Climate Change 2, (2012)

SIMMER WORKSHOP (Science, Policy & Heat-Health Decision Making) Toronto

Seamless weather and climate for security planning

Cuba. General Climate. Recent Climate Trends. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles. Temperature. C. McSweeney 1, M. New 1,2 and G.

Snow occurrence changes over the central and eastern United States under future. warming scenarios

The South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Future population exposure to US heat extremes

Will a warmer world change Queensland s rainfall?

Review of medium to long term coastal risks associated with British Energy sites: Climate Change Effects - Final Report

CLIMATE READY BOSTON. Climate Projections Consensus ADAPTED FROM THE BOSTON RESEARCH ADVISORY GROUP REPORT MAY 2016

Understanding Weather and Climate Risk. Matthew Perry Sharing an Uncertain World Conference The Geological Society, 13 July 2017

Mozambique. General Climate. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles. C. McSweeney 1, M. New 1,2 and G. Lizcano 1

APPLICATIONS OF DOWNSCALING: HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES EXAMPLES

Changing Hydrology under a Changing Climate for a Coastal Plain Watershed

Appendix 1: UK climate projections

Gennady Menzhulin, Gleb Peterson and Natalya Shamshurina

St Lucia. General Climate. Recent Climate Trends. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles. Temperature. Precipitation

Fine-scale climate projections for Utah from statistical downscaling of global climate models

Antigua and Barbuda. General Climate. Recent Climate Trends. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles. Temperature

Enhancing Weather Information with Probability Forecasts. An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

STI for Climate Extremes

Supplement of Insignificant effect of climate change on winter haze pollution in Beijing

Using Multivariate Adaptive Constructed Analogs (MACA) data product for climate projections

Desert Amplification in a Warming Climate

Chapter 3 East Timor (Timor-Leste)

European and Global. Change Projections. ClimateCost. Briefing Note

Credibility of climate predictions revisited

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON RAINFALL INTENSITY- DURATION-FREQUENCY CURVES OF HYDERABAD, INDIA

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK.

NetCDF, NCAR s climate model data, and the IPCC. Gary Strand NCAR/NESL/CGD

PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES

Projections of harvest disruptions due to. industry under future high and low

Chiang Rai Province CC Threat overview AAS1109 Mekong ARCC

Malawi. General Climate. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles. C. McSweeney 1, M. New 1,2 and G. Lizcano 1

Supplementary Information for:

Downscaling ability of the HadRM3P model over North America

CLIMATE CHANGE DATA PROJECTIONS FOR ONTARIO AND THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

Using observations to constrain climate project over the Amazon - Preliminary results and thoughts

Operational Practices in South African Weather Service (SAWS)

SEACLID/CORDEX Southeast Asia: A Regional Initiative to Provide Regional Climate Change Information and Capacity Building

Water Stress, Droughts under Changing Climate

Future extreme precipitation events in the Southwestern US: climate change and natural modes of variability

8.1.2 Climate Projections

Transcription:

NATIONAL ENGINEERING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO CLIMATE CHANGE CITY OF WELLAND STORMWATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE Final Report Development of Projected Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves Prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure February 2012

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 1 2.0 Data... 2 2.1 Historical IDF curve... 3 2.2 Local Climate Data... 5 2.3 Projected Climate Data... 5 3.0 Time Frames... 7 4.0 Approach... 7 4.1 Candidate Approaches... 7 4.2 Selected Approach... 9 4.3 Data Diagnostics... 10 4.4 Fitting Models... 11 4.5 Developing Projected Precipitation Intensity Values... 13 4.6 Treatment of Uncertainty... 15 5.0 Results and Discussion... 16 5.1 GCM Projections of Precipitation and Temperature... 16 5.2 Projections of Precipitation Intensities... 16 5.3 Interpreting Uncertainty... 21 6.0 References... 28 Appendix A: Model Fitting Statistics... 30 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure i

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report provides an overview of the development of projected intensity-durationfrequency curves (IDF curves) for the City of Welland, Ontario, Canada. The objective of the work described here is to develop IDF curves that reflect the changes in the characteristics of precipitation that might be caused by projected changes in climate. Two time frames were specified for projections, namely 2020 and 2050. Over the last four decades climate scientists have developed a theoretical framework and observational evidence to indicate that the average temperature of the earth is increasing and that part of this increase can be attributed to emissions of greenhouse gases generated by human activities (IPCC, 2007). Modern climate simulation models, referred to as Global Climate Models (GCMs, also referred to as general circulation models), have been used to develop quantitative projections of future changes in temperature, precipitation and other climate variables based on estimates of future emissions of greenhouse gases. These models show a consensus that global average temperature will increase, though the amount of projected temperature increase varies with latitude and is not evenly distributed seasonally. Because increases in global average temperature will increase evaporation, global average precipitation will also increase although there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the spatial and temporal distribution of those changes in precipitation, and precipitation in some areas of the globe will decrease. Theory, and analysis of GCM outputs, indicates that warmer temperatures will change the characteristics of precipitation extremes (Kharin, et al., 2007). This scientific information along with recent flood events have motivated infrastructure planners to undertake efforts, like that described herein, to quantify the impact of projected climate change on the IDF curves used as one basis for design of drainage and flood infrastructure. Welland is located in extreme southeastern Ontario, thirteen kilometers north of the north shore of Lake Erie and eighteen kilometers west of the International Boundary on the Niagara River. Welland is also in close proximity to Lake Ontario, located approximately 23 kilometers south of its south shore. Welland is in the process of rehabilitating and enhancing its wastewater, stormwater and drainage infrastructure. The climate in Welland has been characterized by observations at a number of weather stations located in proximity to the City, but the longest available record is at Port Colborne, thirteen kilometers south of Welland on the shore of Lake Erie. In 2000, an updated IDF curve was developed based on observations at the Port Colborne station from 1964 through 2000. The documentation for this historical IDF curve included the record of the intensity of annual extreme events for nine event durations ranging from AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 1

five minutes to 24 hours. To obtain projected IDF curves, the precipitation intensities in the historical IDF curve were adjusted to reflect projected changes in climate using a statistical modeling technique that is described briefly in the following paragraph and in more detail in the following sections of this report. The approach selected for this work uses a statistical model that derives the sensitivity of extreme precipitation to climate conditions from the historical climate information for the site. In this case the historical climate was characterized by observations of monthly average temperature and monthly total precipitation at the Port Colborne weather station. The statistical model, which is described in more detail below, was fitted to the local climate data and the historical monthly precipitation maxima using a form of regression. Information about future monthly average temperature and monthly total precipitation was obtained from the output of 112 runs of GCMs. Each GCM run was compared internally to establish a projected future change in temperature and precipitation. These changes were used to adjust the historical record of temperature and precipitation to reflect future conditions. This produced 112 future climate scenarios that were based on the historical record but which reflected the projected future change in climate. This approach, which is referred to as the delta approach is used to reduce some of the inevitable bias inherent in projections of future climate. The statistical model of extreme precipitation was then run against each of these adjusted records to obtain estimates of climate-impacted extreme precipitation intensities for each of the nine durations and six return intervals. These estimates reflect the bias in the statistical model, so one more run of the statistical model was made against the average historical climate conditions to provide a baseline set of extreme precipitation intensities and this set of baseline intensities was compared against each of the 112 estimates of climate-impacted intensities to determine the change in intensity attributable to the change in climate. These changes were then applied to the values in the historical IDF curve to obtain the final projected values of precipitation intensity. The 112 projections used to characterize future climate conditions produced an equal number of estimates of projected precipitation intensities. For reporting purposes, these results were aggregated into the mean, maximum and 90 th percentile non-exceedance value of precipitation intensity for each duration and return interval. 2.0 DATA This section describes the three data sets used in this work. The objective of the work was to estimate changes to an existing Environment Canada IDF curve rather than to develop a new IDF curve. The nearest location to Welland for which Environment AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 2

Canada had developed an IDF curve was Port Colborne. Accordingly, the local conditions were characterized with the Port Colborne (6136606) weather station. 2.1 Historical IDF curve The historical IDF curve was obtained from Environment Canada. Figure 1 shows the historical IDF curve. Table 1 shows the underlying data. In addition to the data included in the IDF file, observations of daily precipitation maxima for the durations in Table 1 were available from Environment Canada for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. Figure 1. Historical IDF Curve, Port Colborne 6136606 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 3

Table 1. Historical Annual Maximum Precipitation Events Port Colborne, 6136606, mm Year 5 10 15 30 min min min min 1 h 2 h 6 h 12 h 24 h 1965 5.8 6.3 8.9 13.7 19.8 26.4 33.0 33.0 42.4 1966 6.9 10.7 10.7 10.7 14.0 15.0 22.1 26.2 26.7 1967 7.6 12.2 17.0 26.2 26.7 26.7 26.7 36.1 59.9 1968 8.1 14.5 16.8 19.8 26.9 42.4 81.3 101.3 112.5 1969 6.9 10.2 12.4 12.7 19.8 22.6 32.0 37.3 43.2 1970 8.4 10.9 12.2 16.0 19.3 20.3 26.4 33.3 39.6 1971 8.1 12.4 15.0 21.8 24.6 25.7 26.7 29.5 30.5 1972 5.8 9.4 13.7 17.3 23.4 23.4 27.4 33.8 36.8 1973 7.6 12.7 17.3 25.4 36.6 37.6 39.4 39.9 40.4 1974 6.9 7.9 8.6 11.7 15.2 25.7 29.7 29.7 33.0 1975 12.7 20.3 24.6 31.7 32.0 32.0 32.5 33.5 33.5 1976 4.8 7.9 9.1 11.4 19.0 23.9 23.9 38.1 47.2 1977 12.2 14.5 16.6 33.3 37.6 37.6 42.2 48.0 51.3 1978 6.9 8.8 11.1 15.5 25.7 31.6 35.5 42.0 42.0 1979 8.0 11.4 16.2 26.0 34.2 47.6 80.6 116.4 123.0 1980 11.1 14.8 15.3 17.0 25.5 32.8 33.8 41.9 44.4 1981 8.2 9.6 9.6 11.6 14.4 25.7 32.9 37.2 44.6 1983 8.0 10.5 15.2 27.4 29.3 32.0 44.2 46.5 56.3 1984 9.8 15.0 18.0 26.9 28.9 30.7 30.8 51.8 54.2 1985 7.6 9.5 10.5 12.5 16.2 17.2 23.7 38.9 54.2 1986 12.4 18.4 21.2 24.7 26.5 30.6 35.1 43.0 46.6 1987 8.1 13.0 15.3 21.9 34.8 46.4 56.5 56.5 69.4 1988 8.0 11.3 12.9 14.7 17.0 20.0 22.7 42.7 47.2 1989 8.7 9.9 10.5 10.8 17.9 20.5 20.7 24.2 27.6 1990 7.2 9.0 13.1 21.8 28.0 32.8 35.9 44.9 50.4 1991 14.2 20.0 29.0 34.0 60.0 64.2 65.0 65.0 65.3 1992 6.0 10.4 13.5 20.4 28.4 30.3 32.3 42.9 46.0 1993 6.7 7.5 8.3 12.1 17.6 24.6 42.3 43.8 46.9 1994 7.2 8.5 11.5 14.3 18.3 24.4 50.4 74.6 86.9 1996 7.6 11.1 14.1 25.7 30.8 34.6 36.0 36.0 40.6 1997 7.6 9.6 12.3 15.5 17.6 23.2 45.8 54.2 58.2 1998 3.6 3.9 4.4 5.5 7.1 10.5 18.2 26.2 46.5 1999 9.4 14.1 16.6 20.7 22.2 29.7 38.5 45.0 49.2 2000 6.8 7.4 7.4 8.3 8.5 13.5 24.3 30.3 41.0 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 4

2.2 Local Climate Data Local climate data were required to establish the sensitivity of annual extreme precipitation (Table 1) to annual or seasonal average precipitation and temperature. Local climate data were obtained from Environment Canada for the 8 elements shown in Table 2. Table 2. Historical Climate Data Elements Port Colborne, 6136606 Element Description DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE DAILY MINIMUM TEMPERATURE DAILY HEATING DEGREE DAYS DAILY COOLING DEGREE DAYS DAILY MEAN TEMPERATURE DAILY TOTAL RAINFALL DAILY TOTAL SNOWFALL DAILY TOTAL PRECIPITATION Data for all elements were provided on a daily timestep. The elements in Table 2 were available from July 1, 1964 through February 27, 2011. In addition, maximum daily precipitation was obtained for several durations for variable periods covering the period 1964 through 2000 and 2004 through 2006. 2.3 Projected Climate Data The objective of this study is to estimate the sensitivity of extreme precipitation events at the Port Colborne weather station to projected climate change. Development of information about projected climate conditions involves three elements, which are common to most climate impact studies: Emissions scenarios. Projections of future changes in climate attributed to human activity rely on projections of future concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG), which in turn depend on current concentrations and future rates of GHG emissions. GHG emissions depend, in complex ways, on socio-economic development, technology, demographics and politics. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has developed a number of storylines of future global conditions, which are used as the basis for estimates of future GHG emissions. These storylines are documented in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES, Nakicenovic et al., 2000) and are often referred to as SRES scenarios. The IPCC did not assign a likelihood to the SRES scenarios all are considered equally probable alternative images of how the future might unfold (Nakicenovic et al., 2000, Technical AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 5

Summary). From the four SRES scenario families (A1, A2, B1, B2), only the B1, A1B (a member of the A1 family) and A2 scenarios have been used as the basis for projections on many GCMs. These have come to be known, respectively, as the low, medium and high emissions scenarios, based on their impact on climate conditions in the year 2100. Global Climate Simulation. More than 20 global climate models are currently being developed, operated and maintained by national meteorological services, climate research centers and universities around the world. These models have been used to develop quantitative projections of future changes in climate variables, including temperature and precipitation, based on the SRES emissions scenarios. Each GCM is different, but many contain similarities in their conceptual approach and may even share simulation methods and codes. A single GCM will be used to generate many projections, each of which differ by the SRES scenario used to force the GCM, but also by the way in which the model run is initialized and constrained. Downscaled Climate Projections. GCMs operate on a grid that may range in scale from 100 to 200 miles on a side, and their output is provided at this same resolution. While each GCM grid cell covers from 10,000 to 40,000 square miles, a substantial watershed might cover a few hundred to a several thousand square miles, and many tributaries drain considerably smaller areas. Before GCM output can be used for analysis of local conditions, or for local hydrologic modeling, it must go through a process called downscaling, which relates the large scale GCM data to detailed terrain and observed climate conditions. In addition, GCM projections contain bias, which is exhibited as systematic error in replicating observed conditions, and these biases are usually reduced during downscaling with an ex post calibration process referred to as bias correction. This project used a set of readily-available downscaled projections obtained from the bias-corrected and spatially downscaled archive developed by Maurer (2007) according to the methods described in Maurer et al. (2009) and Maurer, et al. (2002) and provided through the World Climate Research Programme's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) multi-model dataset (WCRP, 2009). The archive contains 112 model runs or projections of monthly precipitation and temperature, with each projection consisting of an overlap period from 1950 through 1999 and a projection period from 2000 through 2099. Each projection is the output from a run of one of 16 GCMs using one of the B1, A1B or A2 emissions scenarios. The GCMs in the archive are listed in Table 3. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 6

Table 3. GCMs in Maurer Archive (after Maurer et al., 2009) Modeling Group, Country IPCC Model I.D. 1 Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research BCCR-BCM2.0 2 Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis CGCM3.1 (T47) 3 Météo-France/Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, France CNRM-CM3 4 CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Australia CSIRO-Mk3.0 5 US Dept. of Commerce/NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, USA 6 US Dept. of Commerce/NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, USA GFDL-CM2.0 GFDL-CM2.1 7 NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, USA GISS-ER 8 Institute for Numerical Mathematics, Russia INM-CM3.0 9 Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, France IPSL-CM4 10 Center for Climate System Research (The University of Tokyo), National Institute for Environmental Studies and Frontier Research Center for Global Change (JAMSTEC), Japan 11 Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn, Meteorological Research Institute of KMA MIROC3. (medres) ECHO-G 12 Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany ECHAM5/MPI-OM 13 Meteorological Research Institute, Japan MRI-CGCM2.3.2 14 National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA PCM 15 National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA CCSM3 16 Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research/Met Office UK UKMO-HadCM3 3.0 TIME FRAMES Time frames for this work are summarized in Table 4. 4.0 APPROACH Table 4. Project Time Frames Description Time Frame Climate simulation overlap period 1950-1999 Climate simulation projection period 2000-2099 2020 projection averaging period 2005-2034 2050 projection averaging period 2035-2064 4.1 Candidate Approaches The Canadian Standards Association has published Technical Guide, Development interpretation and use of rainfall intensity-duration-frequency information: Guideline for Canadian water resources practitioners (Technical Guide, CSA, 2010), which provides background about the methodologies used to develop IDF curves based on current climate and a discussion about methodologies that are potentially applicable to the AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 7

development of IDF curves that reflect projected future climate conditions. Appendix 8 of the Technical Guide provides a review of several approaches that have been applied to estimate the sensitivity of extreme precipitation to projected climate change. For detail on the available methods the reader is directed to the Technical Guide and the references therein; the methods are summarized below in several categories: Extrapolation of trends. Linear regression is applied to observed historical data to characterize the trend in short-term precipitation extremes and these statistical models are then used to extend the trend to future periods. Direct interpretation of GCM output. GCMs provide output at a daily time step and at a grid scale that can range from about 1 to 4 degrees (approximately 100 to 400 km on a side at the equator, with the longitudinal dimension decreasing with increasing latitude). Some studies (e.g. Kharin et al, 2007) have used daily GCM output to characterize daily precipitation extremes. These methods cannot directly address time steps shorter than the time step of the GCM. Direct interpretation of Regional Climate Model Output. Regional climate models (RCMs) use a finer grid scale than is used by a GCM (e.g. 25 km for an RCM versus 100-400 km for a GCM). Because RCMs are usually nested, that is their spatial scope is relatively local and their boundary conditions are set by the results of a GCM run, use of an RCM is sometimes referred to as dynamical downscaling. RCMs also run at a finer temporal resolution than GCMs and some RCMs can produce output at 1-hour time steps. These data have been used directly to characterize short-term precipitation, but cannot directly address time steps shorter than the time step of the RCM. Because RCMs are computationally expensive to run and their spatial extent is limited, there are fewer runs available, and these runs are influenced by the biases of the GCM from which boundary conditions are taken. Applying scale factors to climate model output. Scale factors relate short-term precipitation to longer-term precipitation, e.g. monthly average or total precipitation. This is a downscaling method that is similar to linear regression. Applying statistical models to climate model output. Statistical models can be developed to represent a functional relationship between short-term precipitation and a predictor variable, usually at a larger temporal and spatial scale (e.g. monthly total precipitation at a GCM or RCM resolution.) The most common statistical model is a linear model developed using regression. Linear models of the parameters of extreme value distributions (e.g. Gumbel, Weibull) have also been used. Conditional weather generators applied to climate model output. Weather generators are stochastic models that generate time series of weather conditions. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 8

These models may be parametric (that is they rely on classical statistical distributions described by parameters) or they can be non-parametric (that is they rely on re-sampling analogs of weather from the historical data) or a combination of the two. When applied to investigating climate change impacts, weather generators are usually conditioned on large-scale weather variables using statistical models as described above or using non-parametric techniques like the K-nearest neighbor technique. In the approaches described above, climate model output may be raw output at the native grid scale of the climate model (either a GCM or a RCM) or downscaled output. Despite the remarkable improvements in the scientific state of knowledge about the processes that drive weather, and ultimately climate, there is considerable uncertainty about the sensitivity of climate to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Because of that uncertainty, and because of practical constraints, each of the methods described above have shortcomings. It is fair to say that all of the methods described above rely to some degree on an assumption that the relationships between large-scale and smallscale processes, both in time and space, will continue unchanged into the future. This is true of all approaches that use downscaling, scale factors and statistical models, including weather generators. Climate models simulate climate sensitivity, but even these models contain statistical sub-models and are limited in spatial and temporal resolution. In short, there is no perfect method to project climate impacts, there will be considerable uncertainty regarding those projections, and this uncertainty should always be considered when making long-term decisions about investment, policy or infrastructure. 4.2 Selected Approach Based on a review of available methods, and considering the objectives and constraints of the current work, an approach employing extreme value statistics was judged to be the best approach for estimating the sensitivity of short-term precipitation to projected climate. This approach, described in Towler, et al., (2010, published after compilation of the Technical Guide), involves fitting linear models of the parameters of an extreme value distribution of a short-term variable to predictor variables, usually long term variables, referred to as covariates. A separate model is developed for each precipitation duration and is called the intensity model. The method, which is sometimes referred to as generalized linear models (GLM, Furrer and Kaatz, 2007) allows modeling of variables that do not have a normal distribution as well as discrete variables, such as precipitation occurrence. Towler applied the GLM method to estimating peak streamflow, but the method is generally applicable to a wide range of extreme values in addition to streamflow, including precipitation and maximum sea AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 9

level, among others (Katz et al., 2002). Note that Katz, et al. (2002) suggest that the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution is better fits heavy tails to distribution of extreme precipitation, resulting in shorter return intervals, but we have used the Gumbel distribution because this is the distribution that has been used historically by Environment Canada for development of IDF curves (CSA, 2010). In the approach described below the climate predictor variables used to force the GLM model of climate sensitivity are developed using a delta approach and the final adjusted values of precipitation intensity are in turn calculated by a second application of the delta approach to the output of the GLM model. The delta approach and its application are described below. 4.3 Data Diagnostics A diagnostic analysis was conducted to determine the strength of available long-term climate variables in predicting short-term precipitation. The available long-term climate variables were monthly precipitation depth and monthly average temperature. These variables along with monthly rain depth (liquid precipitation) were also available from the local climate record. These variables were aggregated to seasonal and annual values and were also combined to produce indices (on seasonal and annual time frames) and this suite of variables was tested to evaluate the strength of each candidate predictor. The strength of a predictor was assessed using the coefficient of determination estimated using linear regression. These analyses were made using the statistical package R (http://www.r-project.org/). The results of this analysis revealed that statistically significant predictors could not be found for annual precipitation extremes for most durations. Six explanatory variables were screened for all twelve months, including correlation across months, and for nine durations, for a total of 7776 combinations. Many of these relationships showed little explanatory value, particularly for non-summer months. However, analysis showed that 90% percent of extreme precipitation events occurred during the months of June through October. Table 5 shows the occurrence of extreme precipitation at Port Colborne. Table 6 shows the coefficient of determination for selected variables for the months of June through October, for all nine durations. The amount of explained variance was very small for all variables for shorter durations but reasonably significant predictors were found for some of the monthly precipitation maxima. It is important to remember that these linear models will not be used to estimate future precipitation intensities; although the amount of explained variance for a linear model was low for many combinations of predictor variables and precipitation AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 10

durations, the candidate predictor variables shown in Table 6 were evaluated for their ability to fit a GLM model using the generalized extreme value distribution as described in the following section. Table 5. Occurrence of Annual Extreme Precipitation, Port Colborne, 6136606 Occurrence of Annual Extreme Precipitation Event Duration Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Year 5-min 0 3 4 12 11 9 1 0 40 10-min 0 4 5 11 11 6 3 0 40 15-min 0 4 4 11 9 8 4 0 40 30-min 1 3 5 9 11 6 4 1 40 1-hr 0 2 4 10 10 10 4 0 40 2-hr 1 0 4 8 12 11 4 0 40 6-hr 2 0 5 7 11 8 7 0 40 12-hr 2 2 3 5 8 13 7 0 40 24-hr 2 4 1 8 4 5 2 1 27 Total 8 22 35 81 87 76 36 2 Percent 2.3% 6.3% 10.1% 23.3% 25.1% 21.9% 10.4% 0.6% 100% Table 6. Coefficient of Determination, Monthly Extreme Precipitation P*T=the product of precipitation and temperature Duration Month Candidate 5-min 10-15- 30-1-hr 2-hr 6-hr 12-hr day Predictor min min min June Precipitation 4.3% 9.6% 15.6% 27.7% 36.3% 39.4% 42.7% 42.0% 54.5% Temperature 7.3% 3.1% 2.9% 2.4% 1.0% 0.3% 3.0% 4.1% 3.0% P*T 6.6% 11.7% 18.5% 33.5% 40.9% 42.1% 39.0% 37.3% 50.3% July Precipitation 22.8% 28.7% 28.4% 31.5% 38.7% 41.0% 46.7% 54.5% 64.0% Temperature 1.5% 3.2% 4.9% 7.8% 6.8% 5.2% 2.8% 2.2% 21.2% P*T 24.6% 31.6% 31.8% 36.0% 43.5% 46.2% 51.3% 58.3% 64.6% August Precipitation 21.4% 28.1% 30.1% 44.9% 40.9% 44.1% 52.7% 50.1% 28.7% Temperature 1.2% 1.6% 0.9% 4.8% 1.5% 1.7% 1.4% 0.2% 6.1% P*T 22.1% 29.1% 31.8% 45.0% 43.5% 46.8% 57.3% 56.3% 29.4% September Precipitation 27.3% 25.0% 30.9% 33.0% 39.8% 49.6% 50.5% 57.0% 50.6% Temperature 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 1.4% 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% P*T 29.3% 26.8% 32.9% 34.8% 41.6% 51.5% 52.2% 55.7% 49.7% October Precipitation 3.8% 7.0% 11.2% 11.9% 18.3% 25.8% 27.5% 25.0% 63.4% Temperature 19.8% 21.7% 20.7% 21.2% 14.7% 8.2% 2.2% 1.4% 0.5% P*T 8.9% 14.0% 19.4% 20.3% 26.6% 31.9% 29.1% 24.8% 54.3% 4.4 Fitting Models For this work the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution was fit to the historical annual precipitation maxima using potential predictor variables. The GEV distribution AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 11

can assume three possible distribution types, known as the Gumbel, Fréchet and Weibull. The Gumbel is the distribution used by Environment Canada to estimate IDF curves; it is a relatively light-tailed distribution with a fixed shape. Using the Frechet variant of the GEV would allow a model to be fit to the shape parameter, which would affect the weight of the tail, which is of the most interest in modeling extreme values. The strength of predictors was evaluated to condition the shape parameter of the Frechet distribution explicitly, but no variables showed appreciable strength. This may be because there are not a sufficiently large number of annual values to derive a significant relationship. Accordingly, the Gumbel distribution was adopted. The GEV models were fitted using the extremes package (http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/estremes/extremes.pdf) in the statistical package R (http://www.r-project.org/). Separate models were fit for each of the months June through October and for each duration. For each month/duration three principal predictors were evaluated, average precipitation, average temperature and the product of average temperature and average precipitation. For each month/duration, models based on different predictors were accepted based on statistical significance at a criterion of 0.05; acceptable models were found all month/duration combinations. Where more than one model was accepted, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC, explained in Towler, et al., 2010) was used to select the best model. Of the 45 models required, for 32 the best predictor was the product of precipitation and temperature, for 12 models the best predictor was average precipitation and for one model the best predictor was temperature. Table 7 shows the best predictor for each of the combinations of duration and month of the year. Appendix A provides the parameters and goodness of fit statistics for the models shown in Tables 6 and 7. Table 7. Best Predictor for a given duration and month of the year. T=Temperature, P=Precipitation, P*T=precipitation * temperature Month Duration June July August September October 5_min T P*T P P P 10_min P*T P*T P P*T P*T 15_min P*T P*T P*T P*T P*T 30_min P*T P*T P*T P*T P*T 1_hr P*T P*T P*T P*T P*T 2_hr P*T P*T P*T P*T P 6_hr P P*T P*T P*T P*T 12_hr P P*T P*T P P*T 24_hr P P P*T P P*T AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 12

4.5 Developing Projected Precipitation Intensity Values The projected values of precipitation intensity, which make up the IDF curve, were developed using two applications of the delta method (Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 1999; Miller, et al., 2003). In the delta method, climate projections are used to estimate the change in climate variables and this change is then applied to the observed record. The projected change is determined for each climate projection by comparing the climate condition during the overlap period from the climate condition at some future point in time. The overlap period is the period of time where the model simulation overlaps the observed climate; in the projections used in this work the overlap period is 1950 through 1999. In this work, the climate condition during the overlap period is represented as the average for the period 1950-1999 and the climate condition at the future point in time is represented as a 30-year average centered on that point in time. The projected IDF curves were based on two future time periods, 2020 and 2050. The method for adjusting climate variables is illustrated in Figure 2. In adjusting precipitation the delta is in the form of a ratio as shown in Equation 1. P P p = P c P sf so (1) Where: P sf is the simulated future precipitation, P so is the simulated overlap precipitation, P c is the current observed precipitation and P p is the projected future precipitation. In adjusting temperature, the delta was in the form of an offset, as shown in Equation 2. T p = T c + (T sf T so ) (2) Where: T sf is the simulated future temperature, T so is the simulated overlap temperature, T c is the current observed temperature and T p is the projected future temperature. In this application the delta approach is preferred over using climate projections directly because the delta method reduces the bias inherent in climate simulations. The GLM also exhibits inherent bias. In principal every aspect of the method Environment Canada uses to develop IDF curves could be duplicated which would allow for exact replication of the historical precipitation intensities. However, once the distributions are modified in the GLM framework to include covariates the method and results would deviate from those of Environment Canada. Further, in this application a different statistical package and a different method of fitting (maximum likelihood rather than the method of moments) have been used. Because these differences will introduce bias into the estimates of precipitation intensities, the use a second AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 13

application of the delta method was adopted to adjust the historical IDF curve. The calculation is done in the same manner as shown in Equations 1 and 2. The method is illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 2. Development of Adjusted Observed Climate using the delta method Simulated Future Climate Simulated Overlap Climate Deltas (ratio) Adjust (Eqns. 1 & 2) Current Climate Adjusted Observed Climate Figure 3. Development of the final projected IDF Baseline Case Observed Climate Intensity Model Baseline IDF Historical IDF Climate-impacted Case IDF Deltas Adjust (Eq. 1) Adjusted Observed Climate Intensity Model Climate- Impacted IDF Projected IDF For each precipitation duration, the intensity model is run once against the observed climate to generate a baseline intensity estimate. The intensity model is then run again for each climate projection, this time using the adjusted observed climate value AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 14

developed from that projection. This generates, for each projection, a climate-impacted probability distribution from which climate impacted precipitation intensities are generated for each return interval. The final projected precipitation intensities are calculated using Equation 1. Projected and observed intensities are first estimated for each month, each duration and each frequency. Then, for each duration and frequency, the maximum of the monthly intensities is determined. This is done for both the historical and the projected case and the ratio of the calculated historical annual intensity and the calculated projected annual intensity is used to estimate the climate sensitivity of the annual extreme precipitation in the same manner as is shown in Equation 1. 4.6 Treatment of Uncertainty All measurements contain uncertainty, and estimates of future conditions are more uncertain than measurements. Each element of a climate impact analysis contains its own degree of uncertainty. These individual uncertainties do not add up in a straightforward way, but they do interact and each added element does increase the overall uncertainty of the final estimate of impact. The approach adopted for this work is intended to make the uncertainty arising from climate models as apparent as possible, so as to allow well-informed judgments regarding future water resources planning. In North America, the available projections from global climate models (GCMs) show that temperature is highly likely to increase. However, projections of future precipitation are more uncertain; in some parts of North America model projections disagree on both the sign and magnitude of changes in precipitation. The sources of this uncertainty include the data and structure of the GCMs, the methods used to relate GCM projections to points or small areas on the earth s surface (downscaling), and the projections of future greenhouse gas emissions. Regardless of its source, uncertainty should at least be recognized and ideally should be quantified when climate projections are used for planning purposes. As a practical matter, uncertainty in climate projections manifests in disagreement between individual projections of future climate conditions and impacts. There are 112 statistically downscaled projections of future climate conditions (monthly average temperature and precipitation) that are readily available for the Port Colborne area. The most comprehensive picture of uncertainty in future conditions can be obtained by analyzing a large ensemble of projections, as recommended in the CSA Technical Guidelines. Accordingly, all of the available projections have been used to produce, for each duration period and frequency, an ensemble containing 112 estimates of precipitation intensity. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 15

Neither the climate projections nor the results have been broken down by according to the SRES emission scenarios because the intention was to represent the uncertainty in climate projections collectively, regardless of source. The overall results include the ensemble mean, the ensemble maximum and the 90 th percentile non-exceedance value for each intensity estimate. How to interpret the range of projected results is a policy decision; some additional discussion regarding the interpretation of uncertainty is provided in Section 5.3. 5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 GCM Projections of Precipitation and Temperature The evolution over time of projected precipitation and temperature for all 112 projections in the Maurer archive is shown as 30-year rolling mean values in Figures 4 and 5. It is apparent in Figure 4 that there is some model-to-model disagreement over the magnitude of projected precipitation, however the disagreement at this location is substantially less than at locations at lower latitudes and at more interior locations in the continental land mass. Figure 5 illustrates that while individual GCMs may project different magnitudes of future temperature, all GCMs are projecting an increase in temperature 5.2 Projections of Precipitation Intensities Table 8 shows the precipitation intensities from the historical IDF curve from Environment Canada. These precipitation intensities were adjusted by the projected change, as described above, to obtain the projected precipitation intensities, which are shown for the three projection periods in Tables 9 and 10. Projected precipitation intensities are reported as the maximum, mean and 90 th percentile of the 112 values estimated. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 16

1,400 Figure 4. Evolution of Projected Precipitation Vertical bar denotes end of overlap period and beginning of projection period Thin, colored lines represent individual projections. Black line represents mean of all projections. Trailing 30-Year Projected Mean Annual Precipitation Port Colborne, ON Mean Annual Temperature, degrees C Mean Annual Total Precipoitation, mm 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 Overlap Period Figure 5. Evolution of Projected Temperature Vertical bar denotes end of overlap period and beginning of projection period Thin, colored lines represent individual projections. Black line represents mean of all projections. Trailing 30-Year Projected Mean Annual Temperature Port Colborne, ON Overlap Period Projection Period 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048 2051 2054 2057 2060 2063 2066 2069 2072 2075 2078 2081 2084 2087 2090 2093 2096 2099 Projection Period Year 0.00 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048 2051 2054 2057 2060 2063 2066 2069 2072 2075 2078 2081 2084 2087 2090 2093 2096 2099 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 17

Table 8. Historical IDF Table, Port Colborne, 6136606 Precipitation intensities over the specified duration, mm/hr Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 92.8 116.3 131.8 151.5 166.0 180.5 10 min 64.5 83.6 96.2 112.2 124.1 135.8 15 min 52.1 69.1 80.3 94.5 105.1 115.5 30 min 35.7 48.9 57.6 68.7 76.9 85.0 1 hr 22.9 31.6 37.4 44.7 50.2 55.5 2 hr 13.8 18.6 21.7 25.7 28.6 31.6 6 hr 5.8 8.1 9.5 11.4 12.8 14.2 12 hr 3.5 4.9 5.9 7.1 7.9 8.8 24 hr 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.9 4.4 4.8 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 18

Table 9. Projected IDF Table, 2020 Precipitation intensities over the specified duration, mm Maximum Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 133.9 150.6 163.3 180.5 193.5 206.8 10 min 89.9 103.2 113.2 126.7 136.9 147.2 15 min 71.6 83.7 92.6 104.5 114.1 124.3 30 min 49.0 61.2 69.5 80.3 88.4 96.3 1 hr 31.9 39.9 45.5 52.6 58.0 63.2 2 hr 19.2 23.5 26.4 30.3 33.1 36.0 6 hr 8.4 10.6 12.0 13.8 15.2 16.6 12 hr 4.7 6.2 7.4 8.6 9.4 10.2 24 hr 2.8 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.3 5.7 90 th Percentile Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 113.4 133.1 147.0 165.1 178.7 192.5 10 min 76.6 91.8 102.5 117.2 128.7 140.0 15 min 61.7 75.3 85.7 99.2 109.3 119.6 30 min 42.6 54.7 63.1 74.1 82.2 90.2 1 hr 27.2 35.4 41.1 48.3 53.8 59.1 2 hr 16.6 20.9 23.9 27.8 30.7 33.6 6 hr 7.1 9.3 10.6 12.5 13.9 15.3 12 hr 3.9 5.5 6.6 7.8 8.6 9.5 24 hr 2.4 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.8 5.2 Mean Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 104.2 125.3 139.8 158.4 172.3 186.3 10 min 70.8 87.2 98.7 113.9 125.4 136.9 15 min 57.6 72.3 82.9 96.7 107.1 117.4 30 min 39.1 51.8 60.4 71.3 79.5 87.5 1 hr 25.1 33.5 39.2 46.4 51.9 57.2 2 hr 15.2 19.7 22.7 26.7 29.6 32.6 6 hr 6.4 8.7 10.0 11.9 13.3 14.7 12 hr 3.6 5.1 6.2 7.4 8.2 9.1 24 hr 2.2 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.6 5.0 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 19

Table 10. Projected IDF Table, 2050 Precipitation intensities over the specified duration, mm Maximum Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 142.8 158.2 170.4 187.1 200.0 213.1 10 min 95.7 108.2 117.9 131.1 141.2 151.4 15 min 75.9 87.4 96.2 107.9 116.8 125.7 30 min 50.4 62.5 70.8 81.5 89.5 97.5 1 hr 32.8 40.8 46.3 53.4 58.8 64.0 2 hr 19.8 24.0 26.9 30.7 33.5 36.5 6 hr 8.7 10.9 12.2 14.1 15.5 16.8 12 hr 4.8 6.4 7.5 8.7 9.5 10.4 24 hr 2.8 3.7 4.3 4.9 5.4 5.8 90 th Percentile Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 121.0 139.6 153.0 170.8 184.2 197.7 10 min 81.5 96.0 106.4 120.2 131.1 141.5 15 min 65.3 78.2 88.0 101.3 111.4 121.5 30 min 45.1 57.3 65.7 76.6 84.7 92.7 1 hr 29.2 37.3 42.7 49.9 55.3 60.5 2 hr 17.6 21.9 24.8 28.7 31.5 34.5 6 hr 7.5 9.7 11.1 13.0 14.4 15.8 12 hr 4.2 5.7 6.8 8.1 8.9 9.8 24 hr 2.5 3.3 3.9 4.5 5.0 5.4 Mean Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 108.9 129.1 143.3 161.7 175.4 189.2 10 min 73.6 89.4 100.4 115.0 126.2 137.4 15 min 59.6 74.0 84.2 97.8 108.1 118.4 30 min 40.5 53.1 61.6 72.6 80.6 88.7 1 hr 26.1 34.3 40.0 47.2 52.6 57.9 2 hr 15.8 20.2 23.2 27.1 30.0 33.0 6 hr 6.7 8.9 10.3 12.2 13.6 15.0 12 hr 3.7 5.2 6.3 7.6 8.4 9.3 24 hr 2.2 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.7 5.1 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 20

5.3 Interpreting Uncertainty Uncertainty reflects imperfection in our state of knowledge, as distinguished from variability, which is the effect of random processes. In practice, such a distinction is not clear cut, as, for example, the variability in atmospheric processes leads to considerable uncertainty about tomorrow s weather. Nevertheless, it is important to respect the distinction, because while variability can be addressed in quantitative ways, uncertainty must be addressed, at least in part, by subjective judgment (Vick, 2002). Accordingly, deciding how to use the results of this work in the face of uncertainty will be a policy decision. Some background on the sources of uncertainty and suggestions on how to consider the results herein are provided in the following paragraphs. Barsugli, et al. (2009) identified the following sources of uncertainty in projections of future climate conditions: Climate Drivers The anthropogenic component of climate drivers is greenhouse gas emissions which are formally quantified in emission scenarios. These scenarios in turn depend on projections of future socio-economic, demographic and technical factors. Climate Sensitivity This is represented by the climate models themselves. The imperfections in climate models arise from coarse resolution, limitations in simulation of feedback mechanisms, limited knowledge of initial conditions and a number of other factors. Downscaling This is required because of the coarse resolution of climate models and the local nature of impact assessments. All downscaling techniques introduce uncertainty. In addition, there is uncertainty in the models used to assess impact. These can include hydrologic models, statistical models (as is the case in this work), hydraulic models and operations models. Wilby and Harris (2006) found that the greatest uncertainty in climate impact studies arose from the climate models themselves, followed, in order, by the downscaling method, the hydrology model structure, hydrology model parameters (i.e. the calibration of the model) and finally by the uncertainty in future emissions scenarios. Uncertainty in climate drivers and climate sensitivity can be represented by using a large number (an ensemble) of climate projections. Fortunately, reasonably large ensembles of climate projections are available and can be obtained with a relatively low effort. However, the readily available projections of climate conditions are derived using one downscaling technique, so the uncertainty inherent in downscaling is not represented in the projection ensemble. This uncertainty may be considerable. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 21

The additional uncertainty arising from impact models is not ordinarily evaluated in impact studies, as using multiple hydrologic models, each with multiple calibrations along with multiple hydraulic or operations models is simply too costly for most agencies. However, it is important to recognize that decision-makers have routinely relied on the results of impact models as the basis for planning and operational decisions, and thus have implicitly accepted the uncertainties in those models. This work involves a statistical model that, strictly speaking, serves as a second downscaling method. The model takes as inputs projections of climate conditions, downscaled to average conditions over a 1/8 th degree grid cell and further downscales those conditions to a single point, in this case the Port Colborne station. The model also relates monthly average conditions to monthly, and eventually annual, extreme events. The model assumes that there is a causal relationship between seasonal values of the predictor variables (total precipitation and average temperature) and seasonal maximum precipitation intensities, and that that relationship will remain unchanged as climate evolves. It can be safely assumed that in strict terms this assumption will not hold up, but it is the basis, at some level, of all estimates of future conditions. The results presented herein represent one estimate of the range of future extreme precipitation intensity. That range is informed by the range of future projections of monthly average climate conditions, which themselves reflect the range of emissions scenarios and the different degrees of climate sensitivity among the GCMs. However, it is exceedingly important to recognize that an ensemble of projections, such as the one used in this study, may not capture the full range of uncertainty. That is, there is some unknown and unknowable probability that the actual future conditions are not contained in the range of projections in any given ensemble. Further, as noted above, there is additional uncertainty inherent in the downscaling technique and the statistical model that are not reflected in the currently-available ensembles. Accordingly, the results of this work should be used in combination with all relevant sources of information using careful professional judgment. 5.4 Applying These Results Table 11 shows a comparison of the existing Welland (1963) IDF curve with the current Port Colborne (2000) IDF curve. The changes are relative to the 1963 curve, so a negative value indicates that the precipitation intensity in the 2000 curve is lower than the value in the 1963 curve for the corresponding duration/return interval. Blank cells are combinations of duration and return interval that are not available in the 1963 curve. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 22

Table 11. Comparison of 1963 IDF curve with 2000 IDF curve Percent change in 2000 curve compared to 1963 curve Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 min -17% -11% -9% -3% -6% n/a 15 min -18% -12% -7% -2% -5% n/a 30 min -12% -8% -6% -3% -5% n/a 1 hr -2% -6% -7% -8% -10% n/a 2 hr 1% -6% -15% -18% -41% n/a 6 hr 9% -2% -11% -11% -18% n/a 12 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Table 11 shows that the 1963 curve was conservative relative to the estimates made in the 2000 curve. Thus, adoption of the 2000 curve would effect a relaxation of planning standards for many types of infrastructure. Tables 12 and 13 show the same comparison for the projected values for both 2020 and 2050. Review of Tables 11 through 13 show that the 1963 curves were conservative relative to the current estimates and even relative to the projected values for many duration/return interval combinations. In those instances, it is reasonable to retain the 1963 intensities. However, doing so does not insure that those intensities will be appropriate, it simply maintains current practice. When considering how to interpret the projected values the first thing to consider is whether to use the 2020 or 2050 estimates. For most duration/return-interval combinations there is not a large difference in estimated intensity between 2020 and 2050 (a maximum of 7% and an average of about 3%). Therefore, it is reasonable to use estimates from either time frame, but a mildly conservative choice would be to use the 2050 estimates. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 23

Table 12. Comparison of 1963 IDF Curve With Projected 2020 IDF Curve Percent change in 2020 curve compared to 1963 curve Maximum Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 min 15% 10% 8% 9% 4% n/a 15 min 13% 6% 7% 8% 3% n/a 30 min 21% 15% 14% 14% 9% n/a 1 hr 36% 19% 13% 9% 4% n/a 2 hr 40% 19% 4% -3% -32% n/a 6 hr 58% 28% 12% 8% -3% n/a 12 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 90 th Percentile Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 min -2% -2% -3% 1% -3% n/a 15 min -3% -4% -1% 3% -1% n/a 30 min 5% 3% 4% 5% 1% n/a 1 hr 16% 6% 2% 0% -4% n/a 2 hr 21% 5% -6% -11% -37% n/a 6 hr 34% 12% -1% -2% -11% n/a 12 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Mean Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 min -9% -7% -6% -2% -5% n/a 15 min -9% -8% -4% 0% -3% n/a 30 min -4% -3% -1% 1% -2% n/a 1 hr 7% 0% -3% -4% -7% n/a 2 hr 11% -1% -11% -15% -39% n/a 6 hr 21% 5% -6% -7% -15% n/a 12 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 24

Table 13. Comparison of 1963 IDF Curve with Projected 2050 IDF Curve Percent change in 2050 curve compared to 1963 curve Maximum Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 min 23% 15% 12% 13% 7% n/a 15 min 19% 11% 11% 12% 6% n/a 30 min 24% 17% 16% 15% 10% n/a 1 hr 40% 21% 15% 10% 5% n/a 2 hr 44% 21% 6% -2% -31% n/a 6 hr 63% 32% 14% 10% -1% n/a 12 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 90 th Percentile Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 min 5% 2% 1% 3% -1% n/a 15 min 3% -1% 2% 5% 1% n/a 30 min 11% 7% 8% 9% 4% n/a 1 hr 25% 11% 6% 3% -1% n/a 2 hr 28% 11% -2% -8% -35% n/a 6 hr 41% 18% 4% 1% -8% n/a 12 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Mean Return Interval, Years Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 min -6% -5% -4% -1% -4% n/a 15 min -6% -6% -3% 1% -2% n/a 30 min 0% 0% 1% 3% -1% n/a 1 hr 11% 2% -1% -2% -6% n/a 2 hr 15% 2% -9% -13% -38% n/a 6 hr 26% 8% -4% -5% -13% n/a 12 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 hr n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a The projected values, shown in Tables 9 and 10, display significant differences across the mean, the 90 th percentile value and the maximum value. Conventionally, the maximum value is often excluded as the basis for planning decisions because it represents a single estimate and is therefore quite sensitive to error or artifacts. Quantile values, such as the 90 th percentile value reported in Tables 9 and 10, and the AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 25