Corrigendum: Evaluation of the implications of ice‐jam flood mitigation measures

Journal of Flood Risk ManagementVolume 14, Issue 4 e12759 LETTER TO THE EDITOROpen Access Corrigendum: Evaluation the implications ice-jam flood mitigation measures First published: 20 September 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12759AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions Use check box below share version article.I have read accept Wiley Online Library UseShareable LinkUse link a this article with your friends colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Corrigendum for article: Das, A. Lindenschmidt, K.-E. (2021) measures. Management 2021: e12697. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12697 Since its publication, we replaced exceedance probabilities P in Equation (3) formulation provided by Gerard Karpuk (1979). While distributions associated parameters developed are well open-water hydrology, there is no solid or well-developed approach ice-affected river stages. Therefore, scientists engineers rely on graphical nonparametric statistical techniques, such as Weibull, Hazen, median formula proposed (1979) calculate probabilities. Hence, study, decided use latter (Gerard & Karpuk, 1979): where m rank each water level elevation, N total number simulations X value exceeding x (White Beltaos, 2008). We found that overall conclusions do not change but only annual expected damages scaled up factor approximately 3, $11.3 million town Fort McMurray, which line result $10.4 IBI Golder Associates Ltd. (2014). Updated Figures 7 8 below. FIGURE 7Open figure viewerPowerPoint risk maps different scenarios along Athabasca River at McMurray 8Open The from ensemble paragraph immediately before Section should read: EAD demonstrated Figure 8. results show artificial breakup 250 a.s.l dike crest elevation can reduce most among all scenarios. base scenario has maximum EAD, about $11.2 million, an $1.7 million. also great potential risk, could $0.95 Although sediment dredging certain level, they may be less effective compared other two measures, a.s.l. crest-elevation breakup. Moreover, optimum was 3 reduced $5.8 Further studies, changing location, applied identify risk. tenth “Discussion concluding remarks” “… second highest buildings exposed significantly scenario.” Open Research DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Data sharing applicable new data were created analyzed study. REFERENCES Gerard, R., E. W. Probability analysis historical data. Hydraulics Division, 105(9), 1153– 1165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Report feasibility study—Athabasca Basins. Prepared Government Alberta—Flood recovery Task Force. Retrieved https://open.alberta.ca/publications/35751. Google White, K., S. (2008). Chapter 9: Development stage frequency curves. In ice break-up. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Co. Volume14, Issue4December 2021e12759 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation