Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
Example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

New input case for you: Paragraph: Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite on Thursday approved the plan to install defenses at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam near Joliet, Illinois, about 40 miles from Lake Michigan. The site is a crucial choke point in an aquatic pathway between the lake and the carp-infested Illinois River. The plan represents a compromise between proposals to erect barriers that would seal off Lake Michigan from the river and less drastic measures such as stepped-up commercial fishing. Environmentalists and states including Michigan had argued for physical separation, while Illinois and Indiana contended that it would disrupt cargo shipping and that a Chicago-area electric barrier was keeping the carp at bay. Although only a few live Asian carp have been found past the barrier, the fish's DNA has turned up there as recently as April, when water samples were taken from Chicago's Lake Calumet. The Corps says the leading edge of adult bighead and silver carp the most feared of several Asian species because they gorge on plankton that other fish need is about four miles from the Brandon Road complex. "The Brandon Road project is the only shot we have to get additional protections in place to stop the carp," said Marc Smith of the National Wildlife Federation. "It will significantly reduce the risk." The plan calls for installing a gantlet of technologies intended to repel approaching fish, including additional electric barriers and underwater speakers that would blast loud noises, plus an "air bubble curtain." A specially designed "flushing lock" would wash away carp that might be floating on the water as vessels pass through. Semonite's endorsement came more than five years after the Army Corps offered a series of options for blocking the carp's advance. It's now up to Congress to decide whether to authorize the project and provide most of the funding. A pending House bill recommends $3.8 million for preconstruction, engineering and design work in 2020. The expected completion date is March 2027. "With the Asian Carp on the doorstep of our region's most vital natural resource, we have a small window of time to stop this invasive species before it inflicts irreparable damage on our Great Lakes and our $7 billion fishing industry and equally important tourism industry," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Republican Reps. Paul Mitchell and Bill Huizenga of Michigan also pledged support. Bipartisan teamwork will be essential, particularly given the plan's escalating cost, said Molly Flanagan of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. A draft released in 2017 estimated that the project would cost $275 million. The final version put the price tag at $778 million, and that would be under an "expedited" scenario in which the various technologies would be installed at the same time. It could reach $832 million under an alternative "phased" strategy, spokesman Allen Marshall said. Another key will be getting financial support from Great Lakes states. The Army Corps generally requires non-federal partners to pay 35 percent of a project's construction costs, although Congress could waive some or all of the requirement. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker last month authorized his state's cooperation with initial phases of the program but said he wouldn't commit to long-term support without efforts to limit costs and contributions from other states. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Illinois Democrats, said Friday that they would seek congressional approval "under a cost-share agreement that will ensure Illinois isn't left footing the bill for a project that will benefit the entire Great Lakes region." ___ Follow John Flesher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/johnflesher Claim: Army Corps approves $778M plan to block Asian carp advance.
Output:
The head of the Army Corps of Engineers has sent Congress a $778 million plan to fortify an Illinois waterway with noisemakers, electric cables and other devices in the hope that they will prevent Asian carp from reaching the Great Lakes, where the aggressive invaders could leave other fish with too little to eat.