EPA/600/R-24/028
Louisiana Resilience Roadmap
Choosing a path toward a more resilient future
By:
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development
Gulf Breeze, Florida
WE WANT
TO BE HERE
-------
Acknowledgements
We thank the staff, contributors, and collaborators of the Louisiana Watershed Initiative, Capitol Region
Planning Commission in Louisiana, and United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 for advice
and support in developing this guidance document.
Report citation:
Fulford, R.S., B. Dyson, and T. Canfield 2024. Louisiana Resilience roadmap: Choosing a path towards a more resilient
future. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-24/028.
The cover image visualizes theoretical connections between current conditions and future, changed
conditions through services to stakeholders (blue cirdes) that comprise paths to a desired outcome
(green drde); not all paths are the same, and not all paths are possible, but all need to be identified
and evaluated.
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Origin 1
Pathways 1
Destination 1
Vision Statement 2
Background and Purpose 3
Intended Audience 3
LWI Guiding Principles Informing Roadmap 4
Roa dma p D escri pti on 5
Origin 6
Pathways 12
Destination 18
L i t era tu r e C it ed 20
How to use existing data resources in Louisiana 21
Roadmap Development Example 24
Flood Resilience Collaboration Roadmap Outcomes 26
Lessons Learned 28
Next Steps 28
Supplementary Material - Workshop Example 30
Supplementary Table 1 (S1) - Workshop discussion guide 31
Supplementary Table 2 (S2) - Workshop Objective Hierarchy 32
Supplementary Table 3 (S3) - Performance Measures (Destination) 37
Supplementary Information - Case Study Links 39
-------
Executive Summary
Return to Table of Contents
This document describes the proposed organization of a Flood Resilience Roadmap for the state of
Louisiana. Its purpose is to lay groundwork for the development of a formal Roadmap in support of the
Louisiana Watershed Initiative (LWI) Guiding Principles based on a Structured Decision-Making framework.
This guidance document is organized around three Roadmap steps and includes links to supporting
technical information through defined entry points for each Roadmap step.
Origin • The Origin is about the characteristics of the community as a starting point for change.
This includes assets and vulnerabilities, as well as plans and objectives not just for flood protection
but also for overall community well-being.
Pathways • A roadmap shows multiple paths to get from Origin to achievement of collaborative
resilience objectives, but how does a community choose the right path? Optimally there are several
to choose from and the goal of the Roadmap is not to just pick one, but to consider all of the options
against community priorities and goals.
Destination • Choosing a destination is about the change a community wants to achieve based
on established objectives. Improving resilience—which involves measurable change that can be
compared to reference values for established performance measures—is defined during the Origins
step to say we have in fact improved community resilience in meaningful ways. Defining the
Destination is an answer to the question "What does community change look like?"
The Roadmap vision is to develop an interactive, visual roadmap document that allows interested users to
use the Roadmap to develop a formal flood resilience planning document at the local level based on
Louisiana Watershed Initiative (LWI) guiding principles, stakeholder engagement, and EPA tools to quantify
ecosystem services and human well-being.
This guidance document elaborates on the roadmap framework with links to examples and sources. For
additional reference, it includes results from an example exercise involving stakeholder discussions of
inter-parish collaboration to improve flood resilience planning. This example is intended to demonstrate
development of each step in the Roadmap and provide a starting point for development of a formal
Resilience Roadmap in Louisiana.
-------
Vision Statement
Return to Table of Contents
The flood resilience roadmap is a working visual document intended to provide a set of steps for increasing
community resilience through cooperative planning and consideration of ecosystem service benefits to
people. The steps emphasize origin and endpoint determination based on stakeholder engagement, as well
as 'entry points' for each step in the pathway so that communities can adapt the roadmap to their current
efforts.
-------
Background and Purpose
Return to Table of Contents
Flood risk is an important aspect of life in Louisiana. In 2016 alone 56 of the 64 parishes in Louisiana were
declared federal disaster areas as a result of flooding and the risk appears to be increasing
(fema.gov/disaster/declarations). This issue is exacerbated by coastal land loss and projected sea level rise,
which combine to increase risk from storm surge and contribute to a northward population migration as the
cost and risk of coastal living increases. Currently, planning for a flood response is a fragmented process
that occurs largely at the local level. Connections among local authorities are usually financial/operational in
nature and do not reflect the reality of flood connectivity. Communities connected by waterflow—such as
those in the same watershed—should unify their response to flood risk, as that risk is shared by their joint
natural conditions. Such collaboration requires information on how and how much such risk is shared as well
as the cause and effect of local decision making on other communities.
In response to these circumstances, the LWI was created to aid collaboration between local decision-makers,
increase equity in resource availability, and change the perspective of flood resilience planning from local to
considering effects throughout the watershed. The Roadmap purpose is to help make the connection
between flood resilience and cooperative planning, so that the response to flooding is not simply reactionary
but preparatory for future events. Flood resilience is a cooperative issue as no city or parish stands alone
and the choices made by one authority have cascading effects on neighbor communities.
These issues are compounded by the equity of flood preparation and response. Options for increasing
personal resilience to flood risk are tied to financial resources; those who cannot afford to invest in resilience
(e.g., insurance, housing choice, flood plans) must often be content with counting on federal flood response
to regain some sense of normalcy after a flood event. Equity and flood risk are inter-connected and highlight
the issue that resilience is best achieved for the community as a whole rather than mainly for those who can
afford to invest in it personally.
Overall, the LWI promotes a suite of guiding principles for cooperative flood resilience, which is a strong
focus of this document.
Intended audience
This report is intended to provide guidance to community leaders, and those that help them, to increase
community resilience to flooding, by following LWI guiding principles. Community leaders should include
technical staff such as emergency preparedness experts, as well as planners and decision makers. The
emphasis on stakeholder engagement means that community leaders should also include special interest
leaders from groups such as religious organizations, small business, neighborhood organizations, and any
other locally active groups that are concerned with community development. Identifying these stakeholder
groups is an important step in the roadmap process. The skillset for community contribution is general but
should include knowledge of what a community can do to improve and a willingness to step back from
-------
specific projects (e.g., build levees) and discuss community needs in an open forum. Decision makers working
together with community leaders is the most critical element of roadmap development.
People who help are typically community support organizations, such as LWI and the EPA, that can assist
with the development of a local roadmap as in the example provided in this report. This assistance can be
in the form of information, facilitation of workshops, and most importantly the organization of input and
data used as input for the roadmap development. A key part of this outside support is access to previously
collected data and engagement findings (See 'How to use existing data resources in Louisiana' section).
Ultimately roadmap development should be in the hands of community leaders and decision makers but
having support from other groups can be extremely helpful in keeping the process on track and accessing
data and resources.
The process described below occurs in steps and each step should involve all the interested parties in the
target community working together with support partners. Roles for specific groups are outlined in a flow
diagram at the end of the Roadmap description (Figure 3) and can be used as a guide for
recruiting participants. The main goal is an open and inclusive process that follows a structure
needed to keep participants engaged and to assure a useful product for moving forward
LWI Guiding Principles Informing Roadmap
The LWI has five principles to guide the development of a roadmap:
• Communicate that flood risk is tied to every other part of stakeholder lives
• Improve the quality of decision-making by considering all risk
• Foster equitable resilience planning across community members
• Encourage watershed level thinking (upstream/downstream)
• Consider the impacts of migration/population shifts
Resilience is the collective capacity to recover quickly from a flood event. The easiest standard for community
flood resilience is how long and how expensive it is for a community to return to their 'pre-flood' state after
a flood event. The main resiliency goal is to minimize these numbers (time and cost) through planning and
preparatory action. However just as important as minimizing time and cost is to promote equity across the
community in these resiliency metrics so to provide higher resiliency for the community as a whole. The
need for equity and inclusion ties resiliency to the well-being of community members and the Roadmap
makes use of the concept of human well-being as a tool for promoting equitable resiliency.
The objective of a Flood Resilience Roadmap is to help communities reduce flood risk through the inclusion
of these ideals in the planning process and promote coordination of flood resilience planning at the regional
and watershed scale. Coordination, collaboration, and the inclusion of new data into the process is
complicated. This can best be accomplished through a series of steps, from stakeholder engagement, to
maximized access to information, to planning objectives that focus on community cohesion and well-being
as a part of resilience.
-------
This guidance document is intended to guide community leaders to do things differently by providing a
framework and entry points for new thinking. This roadmap is organized around the concept of structured
decision-making, or "SDM" (Gregory, 2012), which has been called "organized common sense" for issues too
complicated for regular common sense (Keeney, 1982). The SDM framework has been applied in numerous
contexts to identify innovative decision options for specific problems. This roadmap's SDM approach should
be based on a multi-community study of transferability to a generalizable roadmap framework based on
three roadmap elements: origin, pathways, and destination.
Throughout this document, yellow highlighted text notes an internal na vigational link to a figure, table,
or definition. All external links are to public-facing information on EPA or other websites. These links are
a part of the interactive objectives for the Flood Resilience Roadmap.
Roadmap Description
Return to Table of Contents.
Change must begin with a clear understanding of the current state (status quo) of a community with respect
to community resilience. In SDM, this is captured in the "Decision Context" step (Figure 1), specified here as
the "Resilience Context" (01) (Figure 2) as part of the Roadmap Origin" step. Origin elements include
accounting for assets and vulnerabilities and listing community values framed as fundamental objectives.
These objectives are organized into a hierarchy, outlining higher- and lower-level objective relationships
(02) and providing a framework for the inclusion of performance measures necessary for evaluating
prospective alternative consequences (PI, P2, and P3). The latter guides users to the second step in the
Roadmap, "Pathways," for improving resilience.
How does a community recognize change in community resilience? Once an alternative is selected for
implementation, performance measures (P3) may be used in Implementation (D1) to verify alternative
(pathway) changes to community resilience. Additional measures for tracking an alternative
implementation's level of effort may also be used. The Roadmap "Destination" (D1) is desired change the
paths are meant to achieve, and this change can be defined in measurable terms and tracked to determine
if desired outcomes are achieved. In this document we will return to the three Roadmap elements to define
and measure how to achieve resilience goals with a focus on entry points and strategies for defining each
step in a meaningful way (Figure 2).
-------
Figure 1. Structured Decision-Making Cycle (Gregory, 2012)
Origin
important criteria for improving resilience include knowing current strengths and
weaknesses, knowing who benefits from collaborative thinking and knowing what we need
to change.
"Origin" is about the characteristics of the community. This includes assets and vulnerabilities as well as plans
and objectives, not just about flood protection but about overall community well-being. Assets and
vulnerabilities are about information and a formal accounting of capital, but community well-being is about
community stakeholders and what they desire. First and foremost, this is about people, but from an SDM
perspective, community stakeholders are described in terms of beneficiaries. When change occurs,
stakeholders gain or lose some of the benefit they enjoy as a part of their well-being. Improving community
resilience should result in increased benefit to people in the form of reduced impact from flood events.
-------
Understanding how stakeholders benefit is a crucial step in planning for change; stakeholder engagement
is therefore a critical starting place in defining a roadmap origin for a community. It is the identification of
what matters to stakeholders, both in terms of community assets ("keep what we have") and community
change that can contribute to an increase in resilience ("more benefit for more people").
Figure 2. Roadmap Steps Based on the SDM Cycle (Gregory, 2012)
OR / g
'V
01 :Clarify Resilience
Context
The who, what, where
of community
values
T
D1: Implement,
and Review
Monitor for desired
change based on
measurable targets.
02: Define
Objectives and
Performance
Measures
What is valued in the
community, and how
to measure it
P3: Evaluate Trade-offs
and Select
Strategy for selecting
across objectives
\
P2: Estimate Consequences
Predicted outcomes from
actions on the objectives
Define resilience context by identifying community assets and vulnerabilities (01: Clarify Resilience
Context) - Frequently, a community is defined by its collective assets and vulnerabilities. For instance, a
riverfront community may gather its identity from access to the river, but it may also gauge its vulnerability
to flooding based on how well the river is contained, either naturally or through built protection. Natural
assets (also known as ecosystem services, such as rivers and wetlands) are of particular importance, as they
represent natural capital that can only be partially replaced by investment in built infrastructure.
Understanding the collective natural assets and vulnerabilities of a community and setting priorities is a key
input to defining a roadmap origin. It also contributes to knowing how to use new data or models in defining
flood resilience, as the primary goal should always be to protect natural assets as a tool to reduce community
vulnerability. These assets and vulnerabilities must be defined in measurable terms with an understanding
-------
of how they will be affected by change. The clearest way to define natural assets and vulnerabilities is in
terms of how they affect stakeholder benefits, as any resilience action should protect them.
Stakeholder benefits as objectives (02: Define Objectives and Performance Measures) - The desires of
the community stakeholders are the second key element of defining a roadmap origin. This is not just a
survey of individual desire; rather, it is a collective consensus of community fundamental objectives that are
consistent through time (that is to say, they don't change just after a flood event), clearly defined, and
prioritized to allow for planning. Here, the terminology changes from people as stakeholders to people as
beneficiaries, and we link beneficiaries to community assets by asking how their well-being changes when
community assets change.
To return to the example of the riverfront community, all stakeholders are affected by the river; however, if
anglers are defined as the beneficiary group, then the asset of interest is catchable fish in the river and we
have shifted to an asset-stakeholder link (for example, NESCS+) that can be measured and prioritized based
on how big that beneficiary group is with respect to the community as a whole. This linking of beneficiaries
to community natural assets is known as "final ecosystem goods and services" or FEGS. Roadmap origins are
collections of FEGS that define a community and outline how that community can improve resilience by
protecting FEGS, especially common FEGS with other communities in the watershed.
A formal approach is a general reference to the use of formal decision analysis techniques for any or all steps
in a full roadmap cycle (Figure 1), starting with formal stakeholder engagement on a focal resilience issue.
This usually involves facilitated sessions, the formal quantitative analysis of data, and occasionally a guidance
tool, such as DASEES. to organize the engagement and the analysis of the results. If used for all steps in the
roadmap cycle, this can be a "zero to plan" approach.
Way forward - The process of listing assets and vulnerabilities, connecting them to beneficiaries, and
prioritizing the resulting pairings is how roadmap origins become the starting point for changes in
community resilience. This is best achieved through stakeholder engagement. Since the goal is a community
consensus on what change matters, the engagement should capture all community interest groups, not just
those directly engaged in resilience planning or decision-making. There are a variety of tools available for
this process, depending on the level of investment, and they are divided between two categories: formal
and adaptive. Formal approaches to stakeholder engagement typically involve multiple facilitated
engagement opportunities over a range of platforms (such as in-person, mail, or survey platforms) followed
by a technical conversion of the results into an objective hierarchy. This approach is more time and resource
intensive but also more inclusive; it is thereby more likely to lead to an identifiable consensus on defining a
roadmap origin. Adaptive approaches, on the other hand, capitalize on former engagement information—
as well as previously defined priorities—and focus more on the conversion of priorities into measures of
change. Examples might include building upon an existing resilience planning document by engaging
technical stakeholders on metric-to-priority conversion. The adaptive approach is faster in the short term,
but missing stakeholder groups is a risk, and consensus can be hard to achieve if the existing resources are
-------
not well understood or popular. Table 1 outlines practical strategies and entry points for defining a roadmap
origin.
An adaptive approach is a general reference to the combined use of existing and new engagement to
complete any or all the steps in the roadmap decision cycle (Figure 2). Previous engagement and consensus
objectives from existing plans, as well as existing data on outcomes, can be combined and adapted to define
any step in the roadmap process. Engagement is needed to assure existing information is necessary and
important to resilience planning and to adapt these data into the roadmap steps. Care should be taken such
that each roadmap step is considered and that existing data do not exclude new ideas or underrepresented
stakeholders. This a "hybridplan"approach.
The formal and adaptive strategies are taken from an EPA report on practical strategies in decision-making
with ecosystem services (Yee, 2017), which outlines a suite of actions for incorporating stakeholder
engagement and an assessment of services into decision-making based on the SDM approach. These
practical strategies are outlined in Table 1-3 as adapted from the EPA coordinated case study
assessment (Fulford, 2021), which contains links to examples from community cases studies as
well as tools and approaches developed for aiding community planning. The table also links to
referenced tools: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES),
Health Impacts Assessment (HIA), the Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response Framework (DPSIR),
and the Human Well-Being Index (HWBI).
Return to
Table of Contents
Table 1. Roadmap Origin Development- Practical Strategies and Entry Points
Practical Strategy
Case Studies
Entry Points
1. Apply FEGS concepts to explicitly connect
assets and vulnerabilities to people
The concept of FEGS explicitly connects
ecosystem services to their benefactors,
allowing for the identification of biophysical
metrics that are more meaningful to a
community and its values.
Formal example case
Formal - Use SDM tools such as
DASEES, HIA, or DPSIR to identify
important FEGS through stakeholder
engagement.
Adaptive - Identify FEGS using
expert opinion and existing
objectives with the opportunistic
inclusion of non-target FEGS that are
also impacted.
study: St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: Puget Sound, WA
2. Apply principles of SDM to emphasize
flexible approaches to FEGS
Principles of SDM provide a philosophy for
integrating FEGS into decision-making by
emphasizing flexible approaches to develop
creative alternatives that are responsive to
stakeholder values.
Formal example case
study: Ada, OK
Adaptive example case
study: San Juan, PR
Formal - Use SDM tools such as
DASEES, HIA, or DPSIR for walking
through the entire SDM cycle.
Adaptive - Identify SDM steps in the
existing decision process with an
effort to expand and educate
stakeholders.
-------
Practical Strategy
Case Studies
Entry Points
3. Incorporate FEGS concepts at any point in
the decision process
Ecosystem services concepts can be integrated
at multiple points in a decision process,
whether that process is in early or late stages,
or whether that process includes informal or
formal decision analyses. FEGS are links from
people to assets and vulnerabilities.
Formal example case
study: St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: Mobile Bay, AL
Formal - Use SDM tools such as
DASEES, HIA, or DPSIR to connect
FEGS to objectives and performance
metrics as well as to analyze trade-
offs.
Adaptive - Identify important FEGS
and connect to an existing decision
process based on expert opinion
with an effort to educate
stakeholders.
4. Use FEGS to identify beneficiaries for
potential engagement
FEGS is a useful construct for ensuring that
potential benefits and costs of environmental
impacts are under consideration and identifying
beneficiaries to engage as stakeholders in the
decision process.
Formal example case
study: San Juan, PR
Adaptive example case
study: Puget Sound, WA
Formal - Use SDM tools such as
DASEES, HIA, or DPSIR to identify all
beneficiaries for inclusive stakeholder
engagement.
Adaptive - Identify beneficiaries by
expert opinion and an existing
stakeholder input process, such as
committees. The process should be
open to the identification of new
beneficiaries.
5. Use conceptual models as a scaffold to
visualize cause and effect and relationships
Conceptual models visualize the cause and
effect between decisions, stressors, FEGS, and
benefits. They provide a common language,
guide discussions, and elicit information,
especially when built from a structured generic
model as an underlying scaffold.
Formal example case
study: St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: Mobile Bay, AL
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HIA, or DPSIR can be used to build
conceptual models that
communicate the decision context.
Adaptive - Conceptual models can
be developed as an ad hoc process
to describe a decision, usually as a
part of stakeholder deliberation or
because of the inclusion of new data.
6. Use objectives hierarchies to define what is
important for the community as a whole
Objectives hierarchies define what is important
about ecosystem services across stakeholder
groups and the means to achieve those
objectives.
Formal example case
study: Ada, OK
Adaptive example case
study: Mobile Bay, AL
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HIA, or DPSIR can be used to build
an objective hierarchy to maximize
the inclusion of all objectives and
know which are the most important.
Adaptive - The listing of all
objectives associated with a decision
via expert stakeholder deliberations
can result in an objective hierarchy,
but the objectives need to be linked
and ranked by the same group.
-------
Practical Strategy
Case Studies
Entry Points
7. Use structured classification systems as a
starting point to identify measurable
objectives
Structured classification systems for
performance measure development, such as
NESCS+, Rapid Benefits Indicators, and the
HWBI, can provide a starting point for clarifying
objectives and measuring them in ways that
reduce ambiguity.
Formal example case
study: Ada, OK
Adaptive example case
study: Puget Sound, WA
Forma! - SDM tools can be
combined with a classification system
to convert a list of stakeholder
objectives into measurable
performance indices.
Adaptive - Performance indices
previously developed via regulation
or through expert judgement can be
linked to objectives based on a
classification system, which can also
allow for the expansion of metrics if
the classification system suggests
new ones.
D5
| HWBI
Benefit endpoints D3
We are here
1 HWBI 1
S20 D7
D8 ) D8 Social Cohesion
f S14 I! S14 Emergency Preparedness q-j
D2
SS S4 £ 04
\ ^ 06
S15 \ S '
AC23 AC28 Population stability/retention * "
ton r o17 Ct SIS Education Services j initiatives
Affected Services
BHB AC10 Philanthrooy
AC26 AC26 Community atmosphere
The above image is an example decisional network. Choosing pathways from proposed actions (yellow) through
services (blue) to human well-being endpoints (green and purple) from the roadmap destination. Choices can
get complicated when many actions are proposed, and endpoints are hard to define without an organized
process like the SDM process. The example shows selected pathways (green lines) from all
candidate pathways (blue lines).
-------
Pathways are sets of actions that are stakeholder supported and achievable with available time and
resources ([Figure 2). Pathway choice starts with what is desired, then narrowed to what is possible and
most likely to improve resilience based on priorities.
Pathways
&
Improving community resilience includes setting priorities for change. It is not doing
everything; rather, it is doing what stakeholders most need and want to do.
A road map shows multiple paths to improve resilience based on origin priorities, but how does a community
choose the right path? There are several pathways, but the goal of the roadmap is not to just pick one;
rather, it is to select certain pathways after considering all options against community priorities and goals.
This occurs in three steps: the identification of alternative actions, the estimation of consequences, and a
trade-off analysis.
The identification of alternative actions (PI) - This scoping phase, where potential paths are defined, must
be grounded in the origin's previously identified fundamental objectives, which are linked to actions through
stakeholder engagement or existing planning documents. Action options should not be limited to
emergency response; rather, it should consider all aspects of a community's priorities in the context on
increasing flood resilience. For example, equitable housing priorities can be examined for action items that
minimize flood risk in vulnerable neighborhoods alongside more general flood-safe housing initiatives like
elevation standards. In general, no potential paths aligned with community values should be excluded from
this scoping step. Identifying alternative actions can be viewed as a brainstorming activity with the caveat
that all included paths are linked to origin objectives.
The estimation of consequences (P2) - Consequence estimation involves understanding the costs and
benefits of each path under consideration. For a specific issue—such as river overbank flow in a flood—
paths are well understood (in this case, building levees to protect property), and the discussion of
consequences is largely technical and limited to experts; however, increasing collaboration in flood resilience
planning is more comprehensive, especially while considering the origin objectives. Here, origin objectives
are linked to potential actions to ensure that consequences of potential paths (that is to say, a specific set of
actions) are estimated based on how and how much each one impacts the resilience objectives. More
specifically, this involves the consideration of how potential paths may change defined performance
measures and what these changes mean for community resilience.
Trade-off analysis (P3) - The final pathway step involves a comparison of consequences of multiple paths
in terms of how each one may change performance measures. This is typically achieved through the
quantitative or qualitative estimation of consequences for each individual path, followed by a standardization
of the outcomes to allow for a comparison across paths (Keeney, 1982). The outcome is a consensus
-------
prediction of effect based on measures of change selected during the "Origin" steps (01 and 02). In a specific
decision context, such as reducing overbank flooding, this is a technical process often involving quantitative
data analysis; however, more generally, consequences can be quantitative or qualitative, involving a
consensus opinion of effects that are revisited regularly to incorporate new information. The goal is to
choose the optimal path(s) most likely to result in positive change for stated objectives and improve
resilience.
Way forward - The pathway selection process is the most detailed of the three roadmap elements. It
attempts to reach a consensus on the impacts of future events, but it is not necessary to completely capture
impacts so much as it is to find which paths are most likely to achieve origin objectives.
Which paths are most likely to reach the desired destination? A good metaphor is a road trip where travelers
are interested in a fast trip as opposed to one where they are interested in stopping at places of interest
along the way. Both reach the destination (top priority), but each requires different resources and satisfies
other desires at the same time (secondary priorities). Here, the formal and adaptive approaches define the
paths. Formal approaches are more quantitative and technical; they better resemble predictions of a possible
future. Examples include flood vulnerability models that predict change in spatial variability of flood risk
relative to chosen actions, such as building levees or improving stormwater management systems. These
approaches include comprehensive stakeholder engagement to achieve a consensus opinion of outcomes,
so they require more time, expertise, and resources, but they can result in more acceptance/reliability of
results. Adaptive methods, on the other hand, integrate existing data and resources into an estimation of
consequences and selection of optimal pathways, though they still use performance measures defined
during the roadmap origin step. In this case, existing data is applied to the novel comparison of potential
paths. As with origin definitions, the adaptive approach to comparing different paths is faster and cheaper,
but it includes a risk of excluding stakeholder groups. Care must be taken to make sure an adaptive approach
is comprehensive and not just an extension of the status quo.
There is a suite of practical strategies for pathway definitions and estimations of consequences as outlined
in the practical strategies report (Yee, 2017) and Table 2, which has been adapted from EPA's coordinated
case study assessment (Fulford, 2021). In Table 2, each strategy has a formal and adaptive approach with
links to examples from existing case studies as well as tools and approaches for aiding community planning.
-------
Return to Table of Contents
Table 2. Roadmap Pathway Development - Practical Strategies and Entry Points
8.
Practical Strategy
Consider improving FEGS as paths to
achieve multiple objectives at once
Case Studies
Depending on the decision context, FEGS
may be a means to achieving multiple
economic, social, health, or general well-
being objectives at once and may provide
an opportunity for developing creative
alternatives alongside more typical social or
economic initiatives.
Formal example case study:
St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: Mobile Bay, AL
Entry Points
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HI A, or DPSIR are designed to identify
multiple paths to the stated objectives.
Adaptive - Paths can be identified
through the consideration of existing
objectives by estimating impacts on
stakeholders; however, the process
should always include a consideration
of multiple effects.
9. Use structured paradigms to link FEGS
alternatives to broader objectives
Structured paradigms, such as NESCS+ or
the HWBI, can provide a clearer connection
between potential alternative paths and
environmental, social, and economic
objectives.
Formal example case study:
St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: Puget Sound, WA
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA are designed to identify
formal decision alternatives and link
them to performance measures to
ease comparison.
Adaptive - Existing decision options
can be evaluated with ecosystem
services metrics identified by expert
opinion or through stakeholder
engagement.
10. Prioritize information and analysis to
what is needed to understand
alternative paths
Information collection and the application
of tools should be prioritized to what is
needed to both estimate consequences of
alternative paths on measurable objectives
and reflect the uncertainty that decision-
makers can tolerate. Complex FEGS
assessments or economic valuations may
or may not be needed.
Formal example case study:
St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: Tillamook Bay, OR
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA formally consider only those
objectives identified as important
through stakeholder engagement
through an organized and facilitated
process.
Adaptive - An existing decision
process, such as resource
management, may be adequate, and
consideration of new information
typically requires a step-by-step
process including a new data
champion, a review of new data, and
expert discussion.
-------
Practical Strategy Case Studies
Entry Points
11. Quantify paths with models and other
quantitative tools that consider
uncertainty and risk
Mathematical modeling tools, ranging from
simple lookup tables to complex
biophysical models, can quantify the effects
of alternative scenarios on the provisioning
of ecosystem services.
Formal example case study:
Puget Sound, WA
Adaptive example case
study: Tillamook Bay, OR
Formal - Developing new modeling
tools will quantify ecosystem services
and compare decision scenarios
defined by decision-makers.
Adaptive - Adapting an existing
decision process with model-based
information and projections can help
improve best available information;
the inclusion of new data is gradual.
12. Let objectives drive the choice of
methods for FEGS benefits analyses
The choice of methods to estimate
ecosystem services benefits should
primarily be driven by benefit endpoints
under consideration and the information
required for a decision.
Formal example case study:
Puget Sound, WA
Adaptive example case
study: Tillamook Bay, OR
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA formally link objectives to
benefits analyses.
Adaptive - The gradual inclusion of a
FEGS benefit assessment into an
existing decision process occurs by
working backwards from known
beneficiaries to FEGS to decision
options. The monitoring cycle is
important for development.
13. Use a decision support system (DSS) to
organize and link FEGS analyses
A DSS can engage stakeholders in a step-
by-step process by organizing information
and models linking decisions to ecological
production functions (EPFs) to benefits
(EBFs) and to facilitate an estimation of
consequences.
Formal example case study:
Ada, OK
Adaptive example case
study: San Juan, PR
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HIA, or integrated modeling tools such
as Envision, VELMA, InVEST, and EPA
H20 can be applied from the
beginning to guide a decision and
engage stakeholders.
Adaptive - A gradual inclusion of DSS
might include an expansion of
objectives, the addition of stakeholder
engagement, and the development of
conceptual models describing an
issue.
14. Compare alternatives with
consequence tables and trade-offs in
FEGS benefits
Consequence tables are a useful tool to
display the effects of decision alternatives
and understand trade-offs among
decisions, particularly FEGS trade-offs,
which are more directly relevant to
beneficiaries.
Formal example case study:
St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: Mobile Bay, AL
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA include the use of
consequence tables and FEGS trade-
offs.
Adaptive - Consequence tables and
FEGS trade-off assessments can be
developed independently as an entry
point for existing decisions.
-------
Practical Strategy
Case Studies
Entry Points
15. Consider trade-offs in FEGS benefits
relative to other objectives
Trade-off analysis is valuable for
considering how FEGS benefits, like human
health, compare to more immediate
benefits, like water quality goals.
Formal example case study:
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA use stakeholder input to
organize all benefits of a decision.
Adaptive - Benefit outcomes of a
decision can be identified by experts,
or data and results can be organized
using ad hoc tools.
St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: San Juan, PR
-------
-------
Destination
Improving community resilience involves changing tactics to accent a community strength
or minimize a weakness and achieve stated resilience goals. How do we know we are doing
something different? What does change look like?
Define the roadmap destination by setting performance measures (D1) - As the old song goes, "I don't
know where I'm going but I hope I know it when I get there." Roadmaps have two goals: find the most
desirable route and achieve stated objectives. For improving resilience—which involves predefining
measurable change that can be compared to defined origin objectives—community resilience can be
meaningfully improved.
In the "Origin" step, we defined community objectives for improving resilience and defined performance
measures for these objectives. Paths are potential ways of improving resilience through action. What is
needed last are targets for change. These targets can be identified conceptually based on objectives; for
instance, an objective of improving equity of flood protection for all members of the community might be
measured in terms of change in the social vulnerability index for the community. The "destination" would be
based on a consensus amount of improvement in the index set based on a comparison to similar
communities or perhaps on needed change to satisfy other objectives, such as lowering insurance costs.
Every objective has a performance measure for which a target can be determined. These targets are then
used to collectively define the community's resilience destination. If this is successfully done, the desired
change will come to fruition.
One useful tool in defining a roadmap destination is the concept of human well-being. All measurable
change in a community can be linked to aspects of human well-being, making an improvement in
stakeholder well-being an outcome of improving community resilience. Human well-being considers
environmental, social, and economic endpoints that can be classified into a measurable form, such as the
Human Well-Being Index (HWBD. and used to define thresholds of change. In many cases, a measurable
impact on human well-being is a clear and easily acceptable target. For instance, the objective of reducing
health impacts of flooding on children might have the performance measure of reported respiratory illness
up to three years following a major flood event. The threshold for this objective might be to cut the rate in
half, but linking this objective target to human well-being might also be an option. A measurable well-being
outcome might be reductions in reported illnesses linked to maintaining child activity levels or reducing the
family cost of living so that a reduction in flood-related illness rate is more meaningful when it translates to
an improvement in some or all these quality-of-life standards. The goal of linking objectives to human well-
being requires effort in that these connections have to be defined, and not all communities are willing or
prepared to make this additional effort to measure flood resilience impacts. Nevertheless, the value is clear
and worth consideration for defining a destination as a target improvement in human well-being.
-------
Way Forward - The final piece of the roadmap is tightly bound to the first step ("Origin") in that defined
objectives have performance measures that we should use to define the destination targets for change. This
last step requires defined target levels for each performance metric to determine if objectives have been
achieved. Targets can be historical standards (such as storm impacts on health returned to historical levels),
community comparison standards ("We want to be like our neighbor."), or conceptual standards ("We want
to reduce impacts in half."). The key is to have a consensus on these standards for all defined objectives so
that the destination is well defined at the beginning rather than an arbitrary target set after the fact based
on what was done. As with the other two steps, this step considers formal and adaptive approaches to
defining targets. Formal methods include more stakeholder engagement as well as a comprehensive
consideration of what constitutes meaningful change in community resilience; adaptive approaches
maximize the use of existing information to set targets based on existing information as opposed to a formal
examination of each performance measure. One formal method for setting thresholds for objectives is to
link objectives to human well-being.
Once again, the roadmap is defined by practical strategies. Thresholds of change can be defined in many
ways, and each community can take full advantage of previous work. The strategies listed in Table 3 (adapted
from the coordinated case study assessment (Fulford, 2021)) are linked to examples of both formal and
adaptive approaches.
Return to Table of Contents
Table 3. Roadmap Pathway Development - Practical Strategy and Entry Points
I Practical Strategy
Case Studies
Entry Points I
16. Monitor impacts to FEGS and well-being
benefits helps define destination targets
FEGS objectives should have their own
performance metrics (PMs), and these PMs
can be included in long-term monitoring
and linked to human well-being metrics to
improve future decisions.
Formal example case study:
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and health impacts assessments
provide the basis for targets linked to
human benefit.
Adaptive - Existing monitoring and
assessment can be adapted to a
roadmap approach by including
chosen performance measures with
group consensus on targets.
St. Louis River, MN
Adaptive example case
study: San Juan, PR
-------
How long should a community take to complete roadmap development process? The timeline has three
phases: Organization, discussion and data gathering, and Report development. The time needed to
complete the process varies based on level of previous community organization, influence of the steering
committee, and available resources. Ideally it will occur in a continuous process with multiple stakeholder
meetings during the discussion phase and a planned report development effort at the end. This should
take 6-8 months to complete. However, the process can be expediated if lots of information is already
available or extended in cases where more time is needed particularly for the discussion phase. There is no
fixed period to complete but the effort will provide the best results if participants remain engaged for all
steps and this priority may drive the time needed to complete a Roadmap
Literature Cited
Return to Table of Contents
Dyson, B. J. (2022). DASEES Consequence Analysis for Environmental Management Decision Making, Volume
2: Technical Documentation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/B-
22/078.
Fulford, R. T. (2021). Transferability and Utility of Practical Strategies for Community Decision Making: Results
from a Coordinated Case Study Assessment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
EPA/600/R-21/304.
Gregory, R. L. (2012). Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices.
West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Keeney, R. (1982). Feature Article—Decision Analysis: An Overview. Operations Research 30(5):803-838.
Yee, S. J.-C. (2017). Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community
Decision-Making. US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-17/266.
Page
-------
How to use existing data resources in Louisiana
The stated purpose of the Flood Resilience Roadmap is to assist communities with flood mitigation
planning following LWI guiding principles for integration of multiple interests, inter-community
collaboration, and watershed level thinking about mitigation actions. Many of the actions that will
be considered have been proposed through previous planning activities at the state and community
level. In addition, there is a great deal of potential input data already available for Roadmap
development that needs to be adapted to local use. The goal of Roadmap formation is to link this
existing information to locally defined outcomes with defined measures of change to support
evaluation. The Roadmap will help make these existing resources more actionable and useful in a
community. Here we highlight some of the most useful resources for flood resilience planning that
can be input data for development of a Flood Resilience Roadmap in Louisiana communities.
Technical data and proposed actions for increasing flood resilience can be used to create a candidate
set of Pathways for roadmap development. This effort allows the community to focus on priority
setting rather than developing pathway s from scratch and can greatly aid with integration across
the watershed. A good resource for this is the Comprehensive Game Plan for a More Resilient
Louisiana https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review7u ri=u rn:aaid:scds:US:fe5fl0e4-8c39-32de-87f6-
4dcd6c6e5cbd- This document presents broad near-term and far-term objectives to follow that are
in line with LWI guiding principles, so development of a Roadmap will align well with this gameplan.
The near-term recommendations may provide community guidance for defining candidate pathways
for flood resilience. For example, improving regulatory efficiency and increasing inclusion are key
elements of LWI guiding principles and the Roadmap development process. A roadmap would define
specific ways to achieve these objectives at the community level. Roadmap input may also include
elements of the Coastal Master Plan (CMP; coastal.la.gov/our-plan/2017-coastal-master-plan/flood-
risk-and-resilience-program/resources/city-parish-plans/) that considers statewide objectives to
reduce land loss and flood damage along the coast. These resources are available to all communities
but the Roadmap will help transform these recommendations into local actions acceptable to local
stakeholders. The CMP calls for "better integration of hazard mitigation plans with other planning
processes." And the Roadmap process is an outcome-specific and actionable approach to achieving
that goal.
Roadmap input data from existing sources can greatly speed up the Roadmap development
process as it does not need to begin from scratch in each community. Like the Resilience Roadmap
the LASAFE (https://lasafe.la.gov/) initiative used a grassroots effort to identify major themes and
concerns of local communities in Louisiana regarding flood vulnerability. These concerns were
converted to recommendations for resilience planning at the state level. Many of the LASAFE
recommendations can be applied at the local level and represent a strong starting point for the
development of a community specific Roadmap Origins description. Further, the conversion of
these recommendations into community Pathways and metrics of change are a part of the
Roadmap development process and these LASAFE recommendations help speed up the process in
-------
cases where they apply. The LASAFE initiative can be a powerful tool in LWI's effort to build more
integrated watershed scale resilience. Another input resource for Roadmap development is the
Louisiana Speaks initiative (https://www.cpex.org/louisiana-speaks) and the Resilient Communities
Infrastructure Program (cdn2.assets-servd.host/utopian-bustard/production/Resilient-
Communities_Final.pdf) which together provide valuable input on proposed actions and resources
useful for Roadmap development.
Page
[ 22
-------
Figure 3. Flow chart summarizing organization of example Roadmap engagement process in Louisiana
parishes including formation of steering committee, community stakeholder engagement, data organization
into Roadmap structure, and communication of results as actionable steps to take in the community. This
report outlines the 'how' and this flow chart summarizes the 'who' as well as a flow of activities taken by the
community in Roadmap development.
Contribution
~
-------
Roadmap Development Example
Return to Table of Contents
Moving forward with inter-parish collaboration in flood resilience in eastern Louisiana
- achieving LWI Guiding Principles in practice
This roadmap process was initiated as a series of workshops focused on inter-parish collaboration on the
overall objective of increasing flood resilience. The workshops were organized around steps for the roadmap
origin element in that the parties sought to define an objective hierarchy and associated performance
measures, both through stakeholder engagement. An adaptive approach was adopted for the initial steps
of the roadmap by employing the roadmap steps of establishing a resilience context (01) and an objective
hierarchy (02) through stakeholder engagement, but it also included existing information on collaboration
developed by the LWI and its partners. This roadmap application example builds upon previous work by the
LWI and is intended to support its guiding principles:
• Flood resilience is not a new topic, but what could be done differently?
• LWI emphasizes equity, watershed thinking, and development of a comprehensive strategy for flood
resilience.
• Today's goal is to explore barriers and opportunities for collaboration that can lead to these goals
for resilience planning.
• Discussion today will apply structured decision-making to achieve a consensus set of objectives and
performance measures for increasing collaboration.
• Today's consensus outcome will be used to populate a guidance document that is a roadmap
towards these resilience goals.
Flood Resilience < the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and re-organize whiie undergoing
change to stiii retain essentiaiiy the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks. (What is
community resilience?) Resilience is about the speed, effort, and resources with which a community can
return to "normal" after a flood event. This requires a definition of "normal," including measures and
thresholds as well as geographic boundaries of interest.
The resilience roadmap formation process will include a consensus definition of flood resilience in the context
of three parishes in eastern Louisiana.
-------
I- ?
II
&>
$
Qj
I
|
Cb"
I
1
to*
I
Sb
8"
&
?
4^
-U
-t*
KJ
NJ
ISJ
CTJ
CT)
--I
CO
CO
S?o
u.
ro
-J
-J
o
TP
tif S
»i f
ft
t
111
If!
M S>
5"a s
5*1?
IP
-------
Flood Resilience Collaboration Roadmap Outcomes
The roadmap decision cycle, as based on SDM, was initiated with partners from three parishes that
collaborate with LWI. Two workshops explored the specific topic of "barriers and opportunities for inter-
parish collaboration on flood resilience planning," and the following summarizes the outcome of those
discussions, which serves as an initial example of the roadmap process in practice. These workshops were
focused on origin development, only partially considered the definition of pathways, and did not consider a
destination. Hence, this roadmap process is incomplete, and we hope to continue the effort going forward.
This application of the roadmap cycle employed an adaptive approach in that discussion of origin steps (01
and 02) were facilitated, but it also included previously developed objectives combined with novel ideas to
foster collaboration. Nonetheless, the following shows one possible application of the Roadmap in practice.
Details on the workshop organization is provided below in "Supplementary Material
Origin • Knowing what to do means knowing what we should be doing differently.
The "Origin" element of the roadmap cycle focuses on the determination of community assets and
vulnerabilities as a description of "who they are," followed by development of a list of objectives for
protecting assets, reducing vulnerabilities, or both. The first workshop was more freeform and considered
both steps, but it did not touch on performance measures as needed for completion of the origin element.
Performance measures were addressed in the second workshop and through informal follow-up after the
workshops. This was an adaptive approach with a minimal use of formal tools.
Three two-hour virtual workshops were held with stakeholders from parishes, state, and local agencies.
Values elicitation (Step 01) followed methods (Gregory et al 2012; Dyson et al 2022) and entailed
brainstorming ideas scoped to be relevant to the decision context of enhancing collaboration for regional
flood resilience. The ideas were framed as objectives using brief action-verb statements such as "protect
drinking water sources" and "minimize water borne pathogens." Objectives were separated into two groups:
fundamental (ends) objectives and means objectives. Fundamental objectives are the results, states, and
qualities desired by stakeholders; means objectives describe actions or targets that lead to the achievement
of desired end results.
Often, initially stated objectives are means objectives that point to a currently undefined fundamental
objective. Objectives were evaluated and clarified using iterative queries where a stakeholder is repeatedly
asked why each statement of an objective is important, with each answer leading to a better formulation of
a fundamental objective. Once clarified, fundamental objectives are organized into an objective hierarchy
that identifies objectives having a similar intent, leading to a higher-level end objective and resulting in a
hierarchy of objectives. A preliminary Objective Hierarchy was structured after the first workshop and refined
as stakeholders reviewed and refined the objectives; the most current version of the hierarchy reflects
stakeholder input after the three workshops.
Discussions during the workshops on inter-parish collaboration resulted in the following list of fundamental
objectives. The complete "Objective Hierarchy," including fundamental and means objectives, is provided
below. It highlights the fundamental objectives as the first product of Origin Element 02.
-------
Define fundamental objectives - Maximize quality of life - Any change should preserve or improve
the overall quality of life. This includes social, economic, and environmental elements, but not al
have to be considered at once. A collective quality of life outcome is the objective.
2.
Maximize community health - Flood resilience has a necessary health component in that storm
recovery leads to exposure to health stressors that need to be minimized. Equity is also a factor for
health as we focus on the health of the whole community.
3. Maximize environmental quality - Flood impacts key parts of the environment, such as water and
air quality. Additionally, resilience can be impacted by environmental vulnerabilities already present,
such as land use that facilitates toxic run-off during storms. This objective relates to minimizing
impacts of flooding on environmental quality as an overall component of quality of life.
4. Minimize flooding impacts - Flood impacts are direct disruptions of daily life, such as
displacement, safety risk, loss of water/power, loss of income, and loss of property. Resilience is not
a response to flooding but a plan to reduce or eliminate impacts for the whole community before
they happen.
5.
Community continuity - Resilience of the entire community should be the target, which requires
objectives related to community connections and identity. If the community is not clearly defined
and supported in an equitable manner, resilience will focus on portions of the community unequally,
making overall resilience harder to achieve. A key first step is to foster consensus on the optimal
scale for community continuity as it applies to resilience (such as a watershed as opposed to a parish)
6. Maximize collaboration - Community-level resilience is best supported through equity among all
community stakeholders in impacts as well as information and access to resources. Collaboration on
resilience actions and planning will support a community-scale outcome.
Objective hierarchy - Fundamental objectives are a part of the origin but must be linked to pathways
through an objective hierarchy that drills down to means objectives and associated performance measures.
These performance measures are a starting place for defining pathways for action and finally to alternative
actions that comprise the pathways.
Many of the practical strategies for the origin element of the roadmap cycle (Table 1) center on linking
community fundamental objectives to FEGS as a method for structuring the outcome and more easily tying
results to viable performance measures. This portion of the example was addressed in a workshop follow-
up involving an addition of detail to the objective hierarchy table (Table SI), as the workshop discussion did
not reach the performance measure step. This is a good example of the adaptive approach in that the FEGS
structure greatly aids these informal discussions by providing a framework for input.
Pathways • Define alternatives, understand trade-offs.
Choosing optimal pathways for change is the most involved step in the roadmap and was only partially
considered during the workshops. The discussion of objectives during the origin step led naturally to some
pathway options being mentioned that are related to increasing collaboration and new thinking on flood
resilience, but the key to this step is defining and exploring trade-offs among these options, which will need
-------
to be considered in the future to complete this step. Possible ways to complete this step are included in
Table 2.
Optional actions mentioned during discussion of barriers and opportunities for collaboration on flood
resilience planning are listed below:
1. Engagement with the next generation - change as a training tool for youth
2. Watershed-scale planning for impervious surface distribution
3. Planning for collective sewer discharge including new housing plans
4. Investigating land swaps - prioritizing land for flood protection
5. Stakeholder engagement for information sharing - equity
6. Access to data for all - transparency and technology
7. Housing cost equity - prioritization of flood protected/low-risk areas
Destination • How do we know we accomplished our objectives?
Destination setting is about converting objectives defined during the "Origin" element (02) into targets (D1)
using performance measures defined for each objective. The "Objective Hierarchy" created during the
workshops can be used to define and agree on performance measures which are needed to scope the
Destination. One option moving forward is to use a standardized definition for performance measures such
as the FEGS classification system, which helps convert local objectives, such as those listed in the origin
element above and the "Objective Hierarchy," into a measurable form.
For the example, for roadmap exercise in southeastern Louisiana, we did not reach this step in the cycle
during the workshops, so it was left to informal follow-up both for the identification of performance
measures as well as target setting. Options going forward include using a FEGS classification approach (Table
3) combined with expert opinion to both define performance measures and set targets as a part of
destination setting (D1). This is an adaptive approach used in this case study to make use of both existing
data (LWI Guiding Principles) while also gathering new ideas about collaboration during the workshop.
Destination setting will be initiated through a discussion of the objective hierarchy spreadsheet (Table SI),
including the addition of a "Performance Measure" column to the spreadsheet, which allows for participant
input via email survey.
Lessons Learned
While the roadmap cycle was not completed for the topic of barriers and opportunities for collaboration,
the process allowed for new perspectives to be included in the discussion of flood resilience planning and
formed a basis for continued discussion in the future. Furthermore, the combination of the LWI Guiding
Principles with the roadmap cycle offered multiple potential entry points for including the LWI Guiding
Principles in local decision-making.
Next Steps
For the elicited and structured information to be useful in a decision analysis of the estimated consequences
of option implementation, further formulation is required:
-------
• Further refinement of fundamental objectives
• Performance measures for fundamental objectives
• Further refinement of means objectives/actions for decision option creation
Once structured, this information will guide technical experts in the selection of methods and models to
predict or estimate the consequences of actions to achieve fundamental objectives.
-------
Supplementary Material - Workshop Example
Return to
Table of Contents
The following materials and outcomes were used during the SDM workshops on inter-parish collaboration
to improve flood resilience planning in LWI Region 7:
S1 - This handout, used during workshop discussions, focuses discussion on barriers and opportunities for
collaboration on flood resilience planning. This topic was chosen as a high priority to meeting the LWI
Guiding Principles in southeastern Louisiana.
S2 -Th is workshop objective hierarchy table was developed as output from workshop discussions to fulfill
Roadmap Steps 01 and 02. This table will also be used as a guidance tool for Steps 03 (performance
measures), PI, P2, and P3 (identifying and comparing pathways), and D1 (performance measure target
setting).
S3 - This summary of performance measures was developed as output from workshop discussions to fulfill
Roadmap Step D1.
-------
Supplementary Table 1 (SI) - Workshop Discussion Guide
Discussion guide for cooperation in flood resilience planning workshop
Greetings and thank you for consenting to participate in our upcoming discussion of barriers and
opportunities for regional cooperation among parishes on flood resilience planning. Our goal is to identify
and discuss real choices that could be game changers for the effectiveness of regional cooperation. In
preparation for our discussion on April 6th, we ask that you consider the following categories and apply your
expertise and experience to identifying objectives in each one. These objectives should include both how
(process) and what (ends) objectives. These categories will either be used to structure break-out sessions or
used to guide group discussion overall, so jotting down a few ideas beforehand can facilitate the
brainstorming process.
• Land use planning
• Economic development
• Housing and quality of life
How to do Brainstorming
General guidelines:
• Brainstorming is constraint-free thinking
• No evaluation of ideas is permitted during brainstorming
• Come up with as many ideas as possible
Brainstorming Objectives
Objectives are concise statements about what matters, what is important to a decision context.
1. Brainstorm what matters: Write down aN the concerns and issues you hope to address for the
decision problem/context.
2. Issues/goals can be things you want to avoid and things you want to achieve
3. There are no wrong answers
r ] Questions to help with idea generation for the given context/problem.
Y What are you trying to achieve? What wouid other stakeholders want to achieve?
• What do you most want to avoid? What would other stakeholders want to avoid?
What would make you happy? What would make other stakeholders happy?
Think of an ideal, possibly infeasible solution. What is good about it?
Think of the worst solution. What is bad about it?
What has occurred that is good or bad? What might occur that you care about?
What constraints, goals, or guidelines are relevant?
-------
Supplementary Table 2 (S2) - Workshop Objective Hierarchy
L Wi Region 7 + EPA Resilience Roadmap Workshop
Structured Decision Making:
Objective Hierarchy Chart
Note: empty cells represent needed information not yet established by the adaptive approach. This is an ongoing process.
Strategic Objectives
Ensure public trust in
government
Encourage environmental
education
Promote civic engagement
for flood resilience
Fundamental Objectives
Justification
Means Objectives
Maximize quality of life
Increase access to affordable
housing
Equity
MAP suitable areas for housing
Minimize commuting to work
More traffic on roads lengthens commute times,
increases stress and may result in greater numbers of
accidents
Partner with RPC on studies to design new traffic corridors with
shorter commutes from populated areas to business centers
Reduce emissions (NOx, SOx, particulates & CO2) are
precursors to O3 and Climate Change
Education & outreach to residents & businesses regarding work-
from-home options
Protect riparian corridors &
Green space
Public access to waterbodies, animal habitat, tree
canopy
GreenPrint shows areas the Parish might be interested in for
swapping & easements to incentivize maintaining integrity &
continuity of these corridoes
Consider swapping areas of higher to lower flood risk
Development codes and GreenPrint
Minimize Loss of Trees
Protect Flood Plain
Maximize community health
Minimize waterborne illness
Pathogens
Locate illicit sewage sources (inspection of individual homeowner
systems)
Minimize vector-born
diseases
WNV
Develop policies to regulate illicit discharges from homeowner sewer
treatment systems
-------
L Wi Region 7 + EPA Resilience Roadmap Workshop
Structured Decision Making:
Objective Hierarchy Chart
Fundamental Objectives
Justification
Means Objectives
Maximize community health, continued
Protect fisheries & oyster
culture (sessile creatures)
Food sources, commercial & recreational
Develop decentralized management program (for homeowner
sewer treatment systems)
Promote central sewer
systems & tie-in nearby ATU-
dominated neighborhoods
Improve individual property values
Realtor awareness of ATUs for New homeowners
Public buy-in for cost of centralization
Cost/benefit analysis of centralizing sewers
Tie-in costs & user fees can be a disincentive for low-
income homeowners (user fees)
Obtain subsidies for LMI homeowners for tie-in costs & user fees
Update sewerage regulations for Lots of Record
Minimize foodborne illness
from seafood
Maintain healthy homes
(mold)
Minimize dermal exposure to
people and animals
Maximize environmental quality
Protect drinking water
sources (DW)
LDEQ Environmental Code/ EPA CWA
LDWF/USFWS (fisheries, scenic rivers)
LDH (oyster culture)
Protect WQ for fish & wildlife
propagation (FWP)
Protect WQ for primary &
secondary contact recreation
(PCR & SCR)
Protect headwater lands
Ephemeral headwater streams are usually associated
with wetlands that provide storage to prevent flooding
of downstream communities
Require development to mimic nature (discharges should be the
same rate pre- and post-development)
Minimize loss of perched &
coastal wetlands
Wetlands provide habitat, groundwater aquifer
recharge, flood storage and WQ polishing
Enforceable Plan & Ordinance for development in wetlands
Encourage or incentivize green infrastructure/ow Impact
development practices
-------
L Wi Region 7 + EPA Resilience Roadmap Workshop
Structured Decision Making:
Objective Hierarchy Chart
Fundamental Objectives
Justification
Means Objectives
Maximize environmental quality, continued
Reduce eutrophication
Entrophic algal blooms indicate excess nutrients and can
be harmful to fish & humans
Outreach to homeowners regarding nitrogen in pet waste & lawn
fertilizer application
Outreach to homeowner with ATUs regarding proper O&M PER their
permit with LDH
Protect recreational
waterways
Minimize flooding impacts
Minimize sewer system
upsets (l&l)
Prevent Floodwaters from inundating central sewer
infrastructure
Manholes should be a minimum of 25-yr elevation and above the lip
of drainage conveyances
Because discharge pipes are below the lip of ditches,
LDH requires backflow preventors on homeowner sewer
treatment systems
Provide Education & outreach to homeowners to assure that these
are operational overtime
Protect drinking water
infrastructure
Community resilience
Stream gauges assist with flood prediction and
modeling, emergency management, grants and citizen
returns following a flooding event
Provide access to stream gauge network
Support NWS to Improve flood forecasts
Prioritize and increase stream & rainfall gauging
Preserve floodplains
Address through development code
Minimize and enforce impervious surfaces
Address through development code incentivize Green Infrastructure
and Low-Impact Development (Gl & LID)
Check H&H models for this percentage (TR-55 assumes 65%
impervious for 1/4 acre lots. Smaller lots will have even greater %
impervious, so runoff will be underestimated)
Community continuity
Promote Economic
Development
Incentivize actions to reduce flood insurance policy rates
Education & outreach to residents & builders
Promote elevations, buy-outs, regional projects (detention, levees,
additional culverts if downstream capacity ...)
-------
L Wi Region 7 + EPA Resilience Roadmap Workshop
Structured Decision Making:
Objective Hierarchy Chart
Fundamental Objectives
Justification
Means Objectives
Community continuity, continued
Promote Economic
Development
Incentivize actions to reduce flood insurance policy rates
Revise building/zoning codes to balance flood risk, accessibility to
affordable housing & affordability
Promote broadband in rural
areas
Partner equitable upstream &
downstream development
Water availability can have impacts at both high flow
HIGH-FLOW (flooding) and LOW-FLOW
(Estuary/ecosystem health, commercial/recreational
fisheries, WQ-permit dilution needs), cultural, saltwater
intrusion... to downstream communities, many of whom
are LMI or flood-vulnerable
MOU with Ross Barnett Reservoir and new One Lake proposed
impoundment for MINIMUM flow rates
Consider NO-Rise certificates for discharges from large
developments - Mimic nature... Developments may need to hold
water longer in order to not effect an increase in the downstream
water surface elevation (WSEL)
Partner economic
development to flood
management
Partner Federal & state
agencies in Climate Change
strategies
Prioritize Marsh restoration & Plantings as non-structural coastal
surge barriers & as carbon mitigation banks
Education & outreach to residents & builders regarding precursors
to greenhouse gas production & mitigation
In restoration projects add Coastal Restoration Monitoring Sites
(CRMS) to measure subsidence, salinity & carbon capture
Partner Federal Assistance
Programs for flood recovery
Need to recover in a timely manner
Streamline federal assistance program processes - HUD funding for
2020 and 2021 disasters as examples
Maximize collaboration
Increase community outreach
Alleviate economic burden to local gov to manage
flooding disaster impacts and increase multi-
jurisdictional cooperation
Streamline federal assistance programs and increase funding for
local gov including infrastructure needs
Adopt consistent approaches
across parishes
Adopt consistent regulations
-------
L Wi Region 7 + EPA Resilience Roadmap Workshop
Structured Decision Making:
Objective Hierarchy Chart
Fundamental Objectives
Justification
Means Objectives
Maximize collaboration, continued
Standardize data
management
Shorten review time and assure data are compatible with
regional watershed models
Require survey & engineering models to be conducted using
software that is compatible and consistent with LWI models.
Software should be cost-effective and publicly available for simplicity
of review and incorporation into LWI watershed-level models
Facilitate data sharing
Data-sharing at the project-level improves topographic
information needed for grants and H&H modeling at
local and regional level
Require surveyors and engineers to share data and model inputs
with local governments
Develop a watershed-level
water budget for
management of upstream &
downstream impacts
Impoundment in upstream communities impacts those
downstream during low-flow conditions. Ross Barnett &
One Lake Plan are examples of impoundments in
Jackson, MS that can cause low-flow issues at the mouth
of the Pearl River near Lake Pontchartrain.
Water budget will assure adequate water supply during critical
summer conditions to satisfy permits, commercial & recreational
fisheries and maintain habitat for estuaries.
MOU between States of LA & MS for minimum flow at state line &
Lake Pontchartrain
Development with inadequate detention or too high an
impervious surface can exacerbate downstream flooding
Improve H&H modeling of large developments, require adequate
detention, regulate lot sizes in flood-prone areas,
encourage/incentivize LID/GI,
-------
Supplementary Table 3 (S3) - Performance Measures (Destination)
Maximize regional flood resilience
Objective
Measure
Notes
Maximize quality of life
Minimize commuting for work
Home to work distance measured in hours of quality time lost
Set standard based on index
communities
Restore tree canopy
Percent tree cover by watershed
Target increases based on input
Protect riparian corridors and greenspace
Coverage of greenspace in watershed (ac)
Target increases based on input
Minimize environmental health stressors
Minimize waterborne pathogens
Pathogen concentration (ppm)
Target decreases in post-flood spikes
Minimize vector borne illness
Illness reporting rate by watershed
Target decreases in post-flood spikes
Minimize dermal exposure to waterborne
contaminants
Awareness level of stakeholders
Prevent mold in housing
Indoor air quality measures
Target decreases in post-flood spikes
Minimize flooding stress mental health
concerns
Social survey before and after flooding
Target decreases in post-flood spikes
Minimize flooding impacts
Minimize infiltration and inflow to water
infrastructure
Minimize economic burden to homeowners
CRS increase # of participants; increase rating score
Accepted target increase
Minimize housing in flood prone areas
# 404 permits for residential development; for major
subdivisions, then find # houses in wetland areas- needs clarity -
former wetland areas, need new more specific sub-objectives for
"flood prone"?
Increase in use of flood risk in
development planning
Maximize environmental quality
Ensure recreational water quality
Change in water quality metrics with floods
Protect drinking water sources
Change in water quality metrics with floods
Protect headwater lands
Use hydrology model output metrics
Minimize projected change
Minimize perched and coastal wetland loss
Use hydrology model output metrics
Minimize projected change
Protect water quality for fish and wildlife
propagation
Use hydrology model output metrics
Minimize projected change
-------
Maximize regional flood resilience
Objective
Measure
Notes
Maximize community continuity
Maximize homeownership
Soft second program; increase # of people enrolled
Define target increases
Maximize affordable family dwelling
construction
# Median community income
Define target increases
Promote broadband in rural areas
# Of citizens with broadband access; user freq.
Report use rates per capita targets
Partner equitable upstream and downstream
development
Maximize collaboration
Increase community outreach
# Attendees in workshops, improve our ability to listen, use
different forum to reach high schools, what is appropriate
engagement for students. Track social media usage, how to
track civic engagement and training events? # Of classes on WQ
This was Ren. His focus was on
engaging and tracking students.
Adopt consistent approaches across parishes
Standardize data management
Agreement on data sources used and formats, agree on survey
methods, agreement on data quality standards
Facilitate data sharing
Agreements across parishes to share data, Establishing a
repository for field data, database
Adopt consistent regulations
Requirements to share data in repository, change incentives to
collect, house and share data, increase participation from
surveyors sharing data
These may need to go in data sharing
-------
Supplementary Information - Case Study Links
The following case study factsheets exemplify applications of SDM framework:
Great Lakes A rea of Concern
St. Louis River, MN
https://www.epa.aov/svstem/files/documents/2021-08/eas-
case-studv-factsheet areat-lakes.pdf
Mobile Bay, Alabama
Mobile Bay, A L
https://www.epa.aov/svstem/files/documents/2021-08/eas-
case-studv-factsheet mobile-bav.pdf
Oklahoma Small Community, Oklahoma
Ada, OK
https://www.epa.aov/svstem/files/documents/2021-08/eas-
case-studv-factsheet oklahoma-small-communitv.pdf
Pacific Horthwest
Puget Sound, WA
Tillamook Bay, OR
https://www.epa.aov/svstem/files/documents/2021-08/eas-
case-studv-factsheet pnw.pdf
San Juan, Puerto Rico
San Juan, PR
https://www.epa.aov/svstem/files/documents/2021-08/eas-
case-studv-factsheet san-iuan.pdf
------- |