Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast: 2012 Update

1. Steve Mathies, PhD- OCPR Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast: 2012 Update

2. Our Current Coastal Crisis • Current and future protection and restoration projects should progress with the same sense of urgency and compressed timelines as was seen in the Greater New Orleans HSDRRS. • Recommend adoption of the same timelines and level of detail used on the “LCA 6” for all feasibility studies. • Acknowledge that Coastal Louisiana is in a catastrophic state of system collapse and that requiring individual projects to be sustainable in perpetuity is an untenable policy.

3. Overview of 2012 Master Plan

4. Builds on Other Efforts

5. Uses Original 2007 Master Plan Science-based Objectives as Foundation • Reduce economic losses from storm-based flooding • Promote a sustainable coastal ecosystem by harnessing natural system processes • Provide habitats suitable to support an array of commercial and recreational activities coast-wide • Sustain Louisiana’s unique heritage and culture

6. More than Concepts and Broad Strategies – An Implementation Plan with Expected Outcomes

7. Key Components of 2012 Update • Specific & Realistic Goals & Objectives • Prioritized Project List • Map showing the selected projects and what they provide: • Levels of protection • Levels of ecosystem services across the coast • Extent and character of future landscape • Detailed Implementation plan with: • Schedule, Costs, Expected sources of funding • An Adaptive Management plan to guide implementation

8. Elements of 2012 Master Plan with Building Blocks for Other Efforts

9. Project Team & Collaborative Effort

10. Master Plan Delivery Team

11. Review and Coordination CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Master Plan Delivery Team Prioritization Tool Technical Advisory Committee Cultural Heritage Technical Advisory Committee Project Effects Models Technical Advisory Committee

12. Technical Advisory Committee Members Project-Effects Models • Steve Ashby, USACE Eng. Res. Dev. Center • John Callaway, University of San Francisco • Fred Sklar, South Florida Water Mgmt. District • Si Simenstad, University of Washington Prioritization Tool TAC • John Boland, John Hopkins • Ben Hobbs, John Hopkins • Len Shabman, Virginia Tech Cultural Heritage TAC • Don Davis, Louisiana State University • Carl Brasseaux, University of Louisiana Lafayette • Maida Owens, LA Dept. of Cultural, Recreation, Tourism

13. Review and Coordination CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Master Plan Delivery Team Prioritization Tool Technical Advisory Committee Cultural Heritage Technical Advisory Committee Project Effects Models Technical Advisory Committee Modeling Workgroups

14. Project - Effects Models Team Members Over 60 Team Members, Support Staff, and Technical Advisory Committee Members

15. Review and Coordination CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Science & Engineering Board (MP-SEB) Master Plan Delivery Team Prioritization Tool Technical Advisory Committee Cultural Heritage Technical Advisory Committee Project Effects Models Technical Advisory Committee Modeling Workgroups

16. National Science and Engineering Board -Independent Technical Review Ecosystem Science / Coastal Ecology • William Dennison, University of Maryland • Edward Houde, University of Maryland Engineering • Robert Dalrymple, Johns Hopkins University • JosDijkman, Deltares Geosciences • Charles Groat, University of Texas at Austin Social Science and Risk • Greg Baecher, University of Maryland • Philip Berke, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill Climate Change • Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey Environmental/Natural Resource Economics • Edward Barbier, University of Wyoming

17. Review and Coordination CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Science & Engineering Board (MP-SEB) Master Plan Delivery Team Prioritization Tool Technical Advisory Committee Cultural Heritage Technical Advisory Committee Framework Development Team (FDT) Project Effects Models Technical Advisory Committee Modeling Workgroups Stakeholders

18. Framework Development Team-Over 30 Federal, State, NGO, Academic, Community, and Industry Organizations

19. Communication & Outreach Elements of Framework Development Team • Framework Development Team as Key Consultative Group • Represent broad range of interests • Ports and Navigation • Fisheries and Restoration • Oil and Gas • Focal point for communications • CPRA • Local Outreach • Political and PR Strategies • Coastal Louisiana Website

20. Review and Coordination CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Gulf Recovery Plan Other Federal Programs Science & Engineering Board (MP-SEB) Master Plan Delivery Team Prioritization Tool Technical Advisory Committee Cultural Heritage Technical Advisory Committee Framework Development Team (FDT) Project Effects Models Technical Advisory Committee Modeling Workgroups Stakeholders

21. Planning Framework Guides Investments Towards a Sustainable Future A sustainable future Future without action ? • Severe land loss • Increasing hurricane flood risk • Loss of ecosystem services • Loss of cultural heritage • Reactive expenditures • Sustainable coastline & ecosystems • Resilient communities and assets • Long-term cost savings through strategic investments How do we get there? What should we do now? How can we adapt to evolving uncertainties and improved information? What tradeoffs remain?

22. 2012 Master Plan Outputs • Maps showing ranges of Master Plan outcomes • Levels of flood protection • Levels of ecosystem services • Extent and character of landscape • An adaptive management plan to guide implementation • Maps of near-term projects • Maps of potential future project • Schedule • Costs • Expected sources of funding

23. Master Plan Delivery Team as a Collaborative Effort

24. Our Future??? • Current and future protection and restoration projects should progress with the same sense of urgency and compressed timelines as was seen in the Greater New Orleans HSDRRS. • Recommend adoption of the same timelines and level of detail used on the “LCA 6” for all feasibility studies. • Acknowledge that Coastal Louisiana is in a catastrophic state of system collapse and that requiring individual projects to be sustainable in perpetuity is an untenable policy.

25. Resolving Issues • Current and future protection and restoration projects should progress with the same sense of urgency and compressed timelines as was seen in the Greater New Orleans HSDRRS. • Recommend adoption of the same timelines and level of detail used on the “LCA 6” for all feasibility studies. • Acknowledge that Coastal Louisiana is in a catastrophic state of system collapse and that requiring individual projects to be sustainable in perpetuity is an untenable policy.

26. Your Legacy??? • Current and future protection and restoration projects should progress with the same sense of urgency and compressed timelines as was seen in the Greater New Orleans HSDRRS. • Recommend adoption of the same timelines and level of detail used on the “LCA 6” for all feasibility studies. • Acknowledge that Coastal Louisiana is in a catastrophic state of system collapse and that requiring individual projects to be sustainable in perpetuity is an untenable policy.

27. Questions?