Corrigendum for the article:

Das, A. and Lindenschmidt, K.-E. (2021) Evaluation of the implications of ice-jam flood mitigation measures. Journal of Flood Risk Management 2021: e12697. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12697

Since its publication, we have replaced our exceedance probabilities P in Equation (3) with a formulation provided by Gerard and Karpuk (1979). While distributions and associated parameters to developed exceedance probabilities are well developed in open-water hydrology, there is no solid or well-developed approach for ice-affected river stages. Therefore, scientists and engineers rely on graphical or nonparametric statistical techniques, such as Weibull, Hazen, median or the formula proposed by Gerard and Karpuk (1979) to calculate exceedance probabilities. Hence, for this study, we decided to use the latter formula (Gerard & Karpuk, 1979):

where m is the rank of each ice-jam water level elevation, N is the total number of simulations and X is a value exceeding x (White & Beltaos, 2008). We found that the overall conclusions do not change but that only the total annual expected damages are scaled up by a factor of approximately 3, to $11.3 million for the town of Fort McMurray, a value which is in line with a result of $10.4 million by IBI and Golder Associates Ltd. (2014). Updated Figures 7 and 8 are provided below.

The paragraph immediately before Section 4 should read:

The EAD of different mitigation scenarios are demonstrated in Figure 8. The results show that artificial breakup and 250 m a.s.l dike crest elevation can reduce the most ice-jam flood risk among all the mitigation scenarios. While the base scenario has the maximum EAD, about $11.2 million, artificial breakup has an EAD of about $1.7 million. The 250 m a.s.l dike crest elevation also has a great potential to reduce the flood risk, which could reduce the EAD to $0.95 million. Although the sediment dredging scenarios could reduce the EAD to a certain level, they may be less effective compared to the other two mitigation measures, 250 m a.s.l. crest-elevation dike and artificial breakup. Moreover, the optimum result was found to be for 3 m dredging in which the EAD was reduced to about $5.8 million. Further studies, by changing the dredging location, can be applied to identify the potential of sediment dredging to reduce flood risk.

The tenth line in Section 4 “Discussion and concluding remarks” should read:

“… the results show that artificial breakup has the second highest potential to reduce the EAD, as the number of buildings exposed to flood risk significantly reduce in this scenario.”

文章更正：

Das, A. 和 Lindenschmidt, K.-E. (2021) 评估冰塞洪水缓解措施的影响。2021 年洪水风险管理杂志 ：e12697。https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12697

自出版以来，我们已经用Gerard 和 Karpuk ( 1979 )提供的公式替换了方程 (3) 中的超标概率P。虽然在开放水域水文学中已经很好地制定了超出概率的分布和相关参数，但没有针对受冰影响的河流阶段的可靠或完善的方法。因此，科学家和工程师依靠图形或非参数统计技术，例如 Weibull、Hazen、中值或 Gerard 和 Karpuk ( 1979 )提出的公式来计算超出概率。因此，对于这项研究，我们决定使用后一个公式（Gerard & Karpuk，  1979）：

其中m是每个冰塞水位高程的等级，N是模拟的总数，X是超过x的值（White & Beltaos,  2008）。我们发现总体结论没有改变，但仅年度预期损失总额增加了大约 3 倍，麦克默里堡镇达到 1130 万美元，这一价值与 1040 万美元的结果一致IBI 和 Golder Associates Ltd.（2014 年）。下面提供了更新后的图 7 和图 8。

紧接第 4 节之前的段落应改为：

图 8 展示了不同缓解方案的 EAD。结果表明，在所有缓解方案中，人工破碎和 250 m 的堤坝顶高可以降低最大的冰塞洪水风险。虽然基本情景的 EAD 最高，约为 1120 万美元，但人为分手的 EAD 约为 170 万美元。250 m asl 堤坝高程也具有降低洪水风险的巨大潜力，这可以将 EAD 减少到 95 万美元。尽管底泥疏浚方案可以将 EAD 降低到一定水平，但与其他两种缓解措施（250 m 海拔堤坝和人工破碎）相比，它们的效果可能较差。此外，发现最佳结果是 3 m 疏浚，其中 EAD 减少到约 580 万美元。进一步研究，通过改变疏浚位置，

第四节“讨论和结束语”第十行应改为：

“……结果表明，人为分解具有降低 EAD 的第二大潜力，因为在这种情况下，面临洪水风险的建筑物数量显着减少。”