pianc conference 2008 coastal flood risk management analysis for the mississippi coastal...
TRANSCRIPT
PIANC Conference2008
Coastal Flood Risk Management Analysis for the Mississippi
Coastal Improvements Program
By Jeremy M. LaDart&
Dennis MekkersUS Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District
Mississippi Coastal Improvements
Program• $10 Million Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations(P.L. 109-359) 30 December 2005
• Cost Effective Projects in lieu of NED benefits
• No Incremental Benefit-Cost Analysis
• 6 month interim and 24 month comprehensive report requirements
• Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction
• Salt Water Intrusion• Shoreline Erosion• Fish and Wildlife Preservation• Other Water Related Resource
Projects
Studies related to the consequences of the
2005 hurricanes
* All efforts fully coordinated with the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
Project (LACPR) team
Coastal Mississippi
Coastal Mississippi
H. Katrina Surge
Planning Sub-units
Planning Process
Surge Probability
Storm Tracks
Modeling Approach
These storms were developed viaa methodology that is similar to theJoint Probability Method – but retain the ability to be checked againstcharacteristics of real storms over at
leastpart of the range considered.
Surge ProbabilityHancock County
Structure Database
• Over 200,000 Parcels
• 800 – 11X17 Parcel Maps
• Over 3,000 man-hours
Structure Database (Cont.)
First Floor Elevation Structure and Content Values Katrina Damage Number of Stories Construction Type Occupancy Type
Coastal Flood Risk(HEC-FDA)
Sta
ge
Probability
Stage
Dam
ag
e
ProbabilityD
am
ag
e
Lines of Defense
Lines of Defense
Structural Measures
Nonstructural Measures
Scenario Planning
Current planning models do not account for relative sea level rise
Evaluation of multiple future without project scenarios
More Informed Decisions = More Time and Cost
Future Without Conditions
Future Scenarios
Application ExamplePearlington, MS
Types of MeasuresPearlington, MS
Impacts of Relative Sea Level
Rise
NED RED EQ OSE
Degradation of risk reduction
Increased impacts to regional economy
Greater degradation of ecological resources
Increased threats to health and safety
Increased emergency costs
Greater strain on local tax burden
Increased risk of plan failure
Greater potential for loss of life
