From a hydrologic loading perspective, RIDM typically requires understanding the AEP of extreme events; however, this information may not be available for all dams. Many dams do have published PMP/PMF studies. Unfortunately, the AEP of PMP and associated uncertainty is not typically known and defining the PMP as having theoretically no chance of being exceeded is in conflict with RIDM. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 's (NASEM's) recent publication calls for federal and state agencies, in partnership with state dam safety officials to develop national guidelines for specifying the annual exceedance probability (AEP) of the PMP. This topic table will explore some changing ideas related to PMP.
Learning Objectives:
From a hydrologic loading perspective, RIDM typically requires understanding the AEP of extreme events; however, this information may not be available for all dams. Many dams do have published PMP/PMF studies. Unfortunately, the AEP of PMP and associated uncertainty is not typically known and defining the PMP as having theoretically no chance of being exceeded is in conflict with RIDM. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 's (NASEM's) recent publication calls for federal and state agencies, in partnership with state dam safety officials to develop national guidelines for specifying the annual exceedance probability (AEP) of the PMP. This topic table will explore some changing ideas related to PMP.
For dams that you are involved with that do have estimates of extreme loading at various AEPs, is the PMP still relevant? How do you use that information?
Can spillway design flood ever exceed the PMP/PMF?
What are the advantages for changing the definition of PMP to include AEP? The disadvantages?
What should federal and state agencies consider in developing national guidelines for specifying the AEP of the PMP?
Are there cases in which aging PMP/PMF studies should not be updated and effort expended on developing extreme flooding estimates with AEPs?
