The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

1 Introduction
Pages 6-10

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 6... ... . The NRC report identified areas for improvement in the three main sections -- restoration, structural, and nonstructural -- of the LACPR draft report (Figure 1 shows the LACPR study region) Read the entire page →
From page 7... ... Introduction 7 Provided further, That using $8,000,000 of the funds provided herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to conduct a comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and design at full federal expense to develop and present a full range of flood control, coastal restoration, and hurricane protection measures exclusive of normal policy consid erations for South Louisiana and the Secretary shall submit a preliminary technical report for comprehensive Category 5 protection within 6 months of enactment of this Act and a final technical report for Category 5 pro tection within 24 months of enactment of this Act: Pro vided further, That the Secretary shall consider provid ing protection for a storm surge equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane within the project area and may submit re ports on component areas of the larger protection pro gram for authorization as soon as practicable: Provided further, That the analysis shall be conducted in close co © International Mapping Associates FIGURE 1: LACPR study area of southern Louisiana Read the entire page →
From page 8... ... The prior 2008 report from this NRC committee concluded that "The lack of some prioritization of alternatives -- based upon their relative merits in terms of costs and restoration and risk reduction potential -- constitutes a weakness with the draft technical report." The NRC report also recommended that "Future versions of the LACPR report will be of greater value to the extent that they identify projects of higher priority that promise to yield greater and more immediate benefits in terms of flood risk reduction and ecosystem restoration." Other key findings and recommendations from the 2008 NRC report include: Restoration -- The report noted that the LACPR draft report "provides no evidence that it will be possible to maintain the current landscape given current and prospective future rates of subsidence, degradation, and sea level rise. At the most basic level, there is no analysis of Read the entire page →
From page 9... ... Yet, participation in these programs will be voluntary and actual compliance is likely to be far less than 100 percent." It also stated, "The technical report does not rigorously assess the degree of risk reduction that would be achieved if more realistic participation and compliance rates are applied." The NRC report also found that "Although a great deal of public opinion has been solicited to date by the LACPR staff, the draft technical report provides little evidence of a unified planning effort among these different governmental levels and bodies." The NRC report also noted that the LACPR draft report did "not suggest policies and programs that could be employed to encourage high rates of adoption of nonstructural measures." Structural -- The NRC report found that the LACPR draft technical report did "not consider the potential for structural failure of levees and floodwalls. As a consequence, the true risk to homes and businesses and people behind structures has not been determined." That report also included discussion of possible realignment of the lower Mississippi River. Read the entire page →
From page 10... ... 1 The LACPR 2009 draft final technical report did not identify any preferred plan or plans. This committee's report thus does not examine cost estimates in the LACPR report, as a review of cost estimates for all the plans that were considered would have had little value. Read the entire page →

From page 6...

... . The NRC report identified areas for improvement in the three main sections -- restoration, structural, and nonstructural -- of the LACPR draft report (Figure 1 shows the LACPR study region)

Read the entire page →

From page 7...

... Introduction 7 Provided further, That using $8,000,000 of the funds provided herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to conduct a comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and design at full federal expense to develop and present a full range of flood control, coastal restoration, and hurricane protection measures exclusive of normal policy consid erations for South Louisiana and the Secretary shall submit a preliminary technical report for comprehensive Category 5 protection within 6 months of enactment of this Act and a final technical report for Category 5 pro tection within 24 months of enactment of this Act: Pro vided further, That the Secretary shall consider provid ing protection for a storm surge equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane within the project area and may submit re ports on component areas of the larger protection pro gram for authorization as soon as practicable: Provided further, That the analysis shall be conducted in close co © International Mapping Associates FIGURE 1: LACPR study area of southern Louisiana

Read the entire page →

From page 8...

... The prior 2008 report from this NRC committee concluded that "The lack of some prioritization of alternatives -- based upon their relative merits in terms of costs and restoration and risk reduction potential -- constitutes a weakness with the draft technical report." The NRC report also recommended that "Future versions of the LACPR report will be of greater value to the extent that they identify projects of higher priority that promise to yield greater and more immediate benefits in terms of flood risk reduction and ecosystem restoration." Other key findings and recommendations from the 2008 NRC report include: Restoration -- The report noted that the LACPR draft report "provides no evidence that it will be possible to maintain the current landscape given current and prospective future rates of subsidence, degradation, and sea level rise. At the most basic level, there is no analysis of

Read the entire page →

From page 9...

... Yet, participation in these programs will be voluntary and actual compliance is likely to be far less than 100 percent." It also stated, "The technical report does not rigorously assess the degree of risk reduction that would be achieved if more realistic participation and compliance rates are applied." The NRC report also found that "Although a great deal of public opinion has been solicited to date by the LACPR staff, the draft technical report provides little evidence of a unified planning effort among these different governmental levels and bodies." The NRC report also noted that the LACPR draft report did "not suggest policies and programs that could be employed to encourage high rates of adoption of nonstructural measures." Structural -- The NRC report found that the LACPR draft technical report did "not consider the potential for structural failure of levees and floodwalls. As a consequence, the true risk to homes and businesses and people behind structures has not been determined." That report also included discussion of possible realignment of the lower Mississippi River.

Read the entire page →

From page 10...

... 1 The LACPR 2009 draft final technical report did not identify any preferred plan or plans. This committee's report thus does not examine cost estimates in the LACPR report, as a review of cost estimates for all the plans that were considered would have had little value.

Read the entire page →

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.

1 Introduction Pages 6-10

1 Introduction
Pages 6-10