[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]







                     PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ALONG THE LOUISIANA COAST










                                          A WORKBOOK

                                                OF

                 IDEAS, MODEL ORDINANCES, RESIDENT AND PUBLIC OFFICIAL

                              SURVEY FINDINGS, AND REFERENCES




                        A WORKSHOP FOR LOCAL AND STATE DECISIONMAKERS


























                                            June 2,1992
       HT
       393
       .L8                              University of Now Orleans
       P53
       1992









                        PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ALONG THE LOUISIANA COAST










                                                A WORKBOOK

                                                       OF

                    IDEAS, MODEL ORDINANCES, RESIDENT AND PUBLIC OFFICIAL

                                  SURVEY FINDINGS, AND REFERENCES




                           A WORKSHOP FOR LOCAL AND STATE DECISIONMAKERS


                                          U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                          COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                          2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                          CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413



                                               Rod E. Emmer, Ph.D.
                                               Ralph Thayer, Ph.D.
                                               Shirley Laska, Ph.D.
                                               Dan Hawkins, M.L.A.
                                            Mark Davis, Legal Counsel
                                        Ashley Salmen, Graduate Student


                                          r
                                            property of        Library

       _YN


              co


              C.3                                  June 2, 1992
              40
                                              University of New Orleans








                   This handbook is one of four documents developed as part of the project:
                   "Reactions of Social Systems within the Coastal Zone to Sea Level Rise and
                   Coastal Erosion," co-principal investigators Shirley Laska, Ph.D. Director,
                   Environmental Social Science Research Institute, Department of Sociology and
                   Rodney E. Emmer, Ph.D., Adjunct Associate Professor, College of Urban and
                   Public Affairs, University of New Orleans'. Copies of this handbook and the
                   other three docurnents are available from the Louisiana Department of Natural
                   Resources, Coastal Management Division, P.O. Box 44487, Baton Rouge, LA
                   70804.
                   Documents:
                   1) Planning for Sea Level    Rise Along the Louisiana Coast: A Workbook of
                   Ideas, Model Ordinances,     Resident and Public Official Survey Findings and
                   References.
                   2) Resident and Public Official Perceptions of the Effects of Coastal Erosion and
                   Sea Level Rise on Coastal Louisiana: The Barataria Basin. 82 pgs.
                   3) A Bibliography of Coastal Erosion and Sea Level Rise: Social and Physical,
                   General and Louisiana. 47 pgs.
                   4) Sociodemographic Characteristics of Barataria Basin Communities
                   Threatened by Coastal Erosion and Sea Level Rise. 4 pgs.

                   Funding for this publication and the workshop was made by Grant
                   #25103-92-01 for $24,958 from the Coastal Management Division, Louisiana
                   Department of Natural Resources and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
                   Management.
                   Any opinions, findings, and conclusions in this publication are the authors' and
                   do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Louisiana Department
                   of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Division, the Office of Ocean and
                   Coastal Resource Management, or the University of New Orleans.


                   This public document was published at a total cost of $'M.Vfor 100 copies.
                   The total cost of all printings of this document including reprints is $!@W. This
                   document was published by the University of New Orleans, New Orleans, La.
                   70148 and prepared in support of a workshop on sea level rise. This material
                   was printed in accordance with standards for printing by State agencies
                   established pursuant to R.S. 43:31. Printing of this document was published
                   in accordance with the provisions of Title 43 of the Louisiana Revised Code.












                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS





              1. INTRODUCTION by Rod E. Emmer        .............................            5


              11. SEA LEVEL RISE, THE COASTAL ZONE, AND PEOPLE by Shirley Laska         ......

                      .....................................................                     9

              111. PLANNING IN THE COASTAL ZONE by Rod E. Emmer          ................     19


              IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS by Ralph E. Thayer and Ashley
                 Salmen    .................................................                  26



              V. ZONING ORDINANCES by Mark Davis         ...........................          34


              VI. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS by Ralph Thayer         ....................        47


              V11. BUILDING CODES by Dan Hawkins     ............................           Insert


              VIII. SEA LEVEL RISE, WETLANDS CONSERVATION, ERODING SHORELINES
                   by Rod E. Emmer    .........    o o .............................          55
                   Model Sea level Rise, Wetlands Conservation, Eroding Shoreline Ordinance
                   Commentary on Sea level Rise, Wetlands Conservation, Eroding Shoreline
                   Ordinance



              Ix. IMPLEMENTATION by Ralph E. Thayer       ..............      o ...........   69


              X. GENERAL REFERENCES        .....................................              75








                 Rod E. Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                          5





                                                    INTRODUCTION



                                                   Rod E. Emmer, Ph.D.



                 Louisiana represents a major component of the dynamic and vibrant lowlands along the
                 margins of the Gulf of Mexico. South Louisiana, an area of virtually no elevation and
                 little relief, achieves significande because it contains approximately 40% of the coastal
                 wetlands of the continental United States, serves as habitat for much of the fish and
                 shellfish caught in the Gulf, and is the home of over two million individuals. Natural
                 process such as annual river floods, Gulf currents, regional subsidence, and sea level
                 rise built and shaped the Mississippi River deltaic plain and the associated chenier plain
                 of Cameron and Vermilion Parishes. Human intervention, for example the leveeing of
                 the Mississippi River for flood control, the dredging of canals for navigation and mineral
                 extraction, and the filling or draining of wetlands, modified the natural processes and
                 accelerated the reshaping of the landscape. The evolution of wetlands to ponds and
                 bays and the erosion of islands and shorelines now takes place in years rather than

                 decades while the construction of new deltas is retarded.



                 Erosion and relative sea level rise are the two most serious problems facing the people
                 of Louisiana and their continued occupancy of the coastal zone. Coastal erosion has
                 always been a dominant process throughout the Louisiana coastal zone, but recent
                 events and actions have more forcefully brought it to our attention. Degradation of
                 wetlands, beaches, and shorelines results from natural processes of currents, waves,
                 and sea level rise. Human actions, flood control projects that diminish sediment
                 supplies, jetties and navigation canals that interrupt sand movement, increased tidal
                 action due to canals, and higher rates of runoff, accelerate degradation of the coastal
                 environments. For example, beach erosion rates range from almost 57 ft/yr in the









                 Rod E. Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                        6


                 Fourchon region to 10 ft/yr along Grand Isle. Erosion is not, however, limited to
                 beaches and marshes fronting the Gulf. Studies document that, annually, thousands
                 of acres of interior wetlands are opening to water and canal banks are retreating.
                 Lower Terrebonne and St. Bernard Parishes best illustrate both problems. The Houma
                 Navigation Canal and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet have high rates of bank erosion
                 and have allowed for the introduction of salty Gulf waters into freshwater marshes and
                 swamps, killing vegetation and degrading the overall system.


                 Relative sea level rise, the second issue, results from regional subsidence (the whole
                 area is going down due to the geologic character of the sediments and underlying beds)
                 at the same time the water surface is getting higher. By the year 2100 estimates place
                 the oceans of the world including the Gulf of Mexico as much as 22 to 144 inches
                 above where they now stand (Gornitz and Kanciruk 1989; Titus 1987). Such a
                 significant rise in sea level when combined with the factors that contribute to
                 subsidence will have a devastating effect on the low-lying coastal zones of the world.
                 Several problems expected along the Louisiana coast include: abandonment of
                 communities because of flooded roads, yards, and buildings; increased frequency and
                 severity of storms and storm surge; shoreline erosion and inundation; accelerated loss
                 of wetlands; modified coastal processes, such as hydrologic circulation; and
                 abandonment of shoreline structures and changing land uses Karin and Hershman
                 1990). Certainly, actions anticipating these changes need to be taken by the parishes
                 and communities along the coast.


                 With the passage of Act 6 of the 1989 Special Legislative session, Louisiana made a
                 positive statement on the value of the coastal zone. Act 6 provides state money for
                 engineering projects to reduce the degradation of the coastal wetlands. Diversions will
                 move fresh water and sediment from the Mississippi River into the interior basins.
                 Projects will help manage wetlands to reduce losses. Vegetative plantings wi.11 stabilize
                 shorelines and barrier islands, while sands and spoil rebuild islands and beaches. But








                Rod E. Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                           7


                these projects cannot act in isolation. Recognizing a national interest in addressing
                coastal wetlands loss Congress passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
                Restoration Act (PL 101-646). A task force created by PL 101-646 is developing a
                Comprehensive Restoration Plan for Louisiana.


                Communities in the coastal zone must take steps to protect the valuable coastal
                resources and the people of the parish or municipality by addressing how we use and
                live in the areas threatened by rising water and erosion (Darlington 1989). A recent
                survey (Laska and Emmer 1992) indicates that local officials recognize that they must
                do something, but three-quarters of the respondents felt that local public officials do not
                have sufficient regulatory resources to deal with the problems. The purpose of the
                workshop and this workbook is to provide information and models that local planners

                and decisionmakers can use to confront the effects of sea level rise and coastal erosion.
                Each model presents the basic elements that should become part of any program.
                Before enactment by a parish or municipality an ordinance should consider local
                problems by proposing specific criteria for evaluation and implementation, and setting
                a format acceptable to the community and legal requirements.


                The workshop begins with a discuss of the problems facing Louisiana and the people
                who live in the coastal zone and how the people feel about these concerns. Once we
                establish the setting, a process is suggested for systematically confronting the
                problems. The program then turns to models of ordinances local governments can
                enact to meet the challenges of sea level rise and coastal erosion. Concluding remarks
                focus on ways of implementing the suggestions make throughout the workshop.








             Rod E. Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                           8


             REFERENCES:



                Darlington, J. D. .1989 Risk Perception and Response to a Pervasive

                         Hazard: Coastal Erosion in South Louisiana. Master's Thesis.
                         Department of Sociology, University of New Orleans, New Orleans,

                         La.



                Gornitz, V. and P. Kanciruk 1989 Assessment of Global Coastal Hazards
                         from Sea Level Rise. In: 0. T. Magoon et al. (eds.). Coastal Zone
                         '89, Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
                         Management. Charleston, S.C. July 11-14. Vol. 2, pp.

                         1345-1359.



                Klarin, P. and M. Hershman 1990 RESPONSE OF COASTAL ZONE

                         MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TO SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE UNITED

                         STATES. Coastal Management, Vol. 18, pp. 143-165.


                Laska, S. and R. Emmer 1992 RESIDENT AND PUBLIC OFFICIAL

                         PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF COASTAL EROSION AND

                         SEA LEVEL RISE ON COASTAL LOUISIANA: THE BARATARIA

                         BASIN. The Environmental Social Science Research Institute,
                         University of New Orleans. For the Coastal Management Division,
                         Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, La. 82

                         P.


                Titus, J. G. 1987 THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, RISING SEA LEVEL AND
                         SOCIETY'S RESPONSE. IN: R. J. N. Devoy (ed.) Sea Surface Stu
                         dies, A Global View. Croon Heim: New York. Chapter 15. pp.

                         253-269.








                   Shirley Laska, Ph.D. juine 2, 1992                                                9




                         RESIDENT AND PUBLIC OFFICIAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE

                       EFFECTS OF COASTAL EROSION AND SEA LEVEL RISE ON

                              COASTAL LOUISIANA: THE BARATARIA BASIN



                                                    A SUMMARY



                                                Shirley Laska, Ph.D.



                   The prospect of the disappearance of the land on which one lives, raises their
                   family and earns their living is a frightening prospect, perhaps so frightening
                   that it is difficult to consider. Such, however, is the reality which many coastal
                   Louisiana residents have had to face over the years in which humans have
                   inhabited the area. Names which are just a memory or now have a place only
                   in a history book include the communities of Cheniere au Tigre, Cheniere
                   Camanada, Frenier Beach and Manila Village to name some. Recently, human
                   actions such as river channelization and canal dredging have combined with the
                   natural processes such as land subsidence and compaction to pose the reality

                   of land loss to more and more coastal residents.



                   The immediat  e response to such a horrifying prospect is to deny it. Governor
                   Roemer took this position in a hearing conducted in 1990 by the National
                   Organization of Governors: "We won't leavel" he declared. A wise statement
                   indeed for a public official because abandonment almost assuredly would
                   eliminate the constituency upon which their position is based. First, voters
                   would be reluctant to support a public official who is quick to advocate








                     Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 191V- di.,                                               10

                     abandonment of their community; and when abandoned there would be no
                     voters to vote for anyone.


                     Resisting coastal abandonment has another utility. A firm refusal to leave may
                     put into motion actions which will prevent the necessity to do so. Examples
                     of these range from Act 6 of the 1989 Special Legislative session (which
                     provides state money for engineering projects to reduce the degradation of the
                     coastal wetlands) to the stalwart determination of some local public officials
                     who try to challenge all odds to maintain human presence in threatened coastal

                     areas.



                     But can such a position of refusal to deal with the realities of coastal land loss
                     also do harm? It is the contention of this project and its resul        ting workshop
                     that considerable harm can be done by refusal to recognize the likely realities
                     of coastal land loss and to put into place a plan and ordinances to deal with it.
                     For example, monies might be spent on new infrastructure which will not be
                     useful throughout its life-span because it will be inundated by coastal waters
                     before it is obsolete. Roadways and sewage treatment plants are examples.
                     Residents will be permitted to build homes which will have to be abandoned
                     well before their age warrants because the owners will give up in frustration as
                     each trip to and from their home requires boots and a vehicle with four-wheel

                     drive.



                     The two responses--resistance to coastal changes and systematic response to
                     them-are not incompatible. In fact, combining the two is probably the wisest.
                     One tries to slow land loss or restore land once lost at the same time one

                     anticipates what is likely to occur, what land will go, what areas will be
                     increasingly threatened. The two responses, however, may not receive the
                     same support from public officials and residents. No one wants to give up, to
                     abandon one's home. Resistance to such a threat is almost an automatic








                  Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 19b2                                             11

                  human response. Planning for wretreat" takes on an entirely different image.
                  One doesn't retreat unless forced to, and only then with much reluctance.
                  There is, however, another image of retreat. That is a recognition that it
                  sometimes saves lives, reduces suffering and economic loss and provides for
                  the human resources to pursue one's objectives another day. If planning is
                  equated with this latter image of a constructive retreat from the threatened
                  coastal areas, it may be seen as a much more constructive action.


                  So far we have been discussing how people usually respond when threatened
                  by a serious challenge. But what about people in the Louisiana coastal zone?
                  What is the reality of coastal land loss which they carry in their minds? Are
                  they experiencing the effects of it? Do they feel that they can do anything
                  about it? How seriously do they expect that land loss will threaten them in the
                  future? What are they anticipating they will have to do in response to it? What
                  responses are acceptable to them? To what will they give their political
                  support?


                  Are coastal residents and public officials different in the answers they would
                  give to these questions? What resources do public officials think they have
                  with which to respond? What resources would they like?


                  The remaining part of this section of the workbook summarizes the results of
                  two surveys which attempt to answer these questions. (See the full report
                  available from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources for details of the
                  methodology used and the findings. An order form is included in the workbook.)


                  The first survey of approximately 50 questions was administered by telephone
                  during September, 1991 to 451 residents (registered voters) of the Barataria
                  Basin by the Survey Research Center at the University of New Orleans.
                  Approximately 46% of those with valid phone numbers (did not answer or line








                    Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                12

                    busy) completed the interviews. Ten percent of the respondents reported that
                    they did not believe Louisiana was experiencing any land loss due to coastal
                    erosion. No further questions were asked of these respondents after they

                    answered no.



                    The second survey including the 50 questions plus an additional 10 relevant
                    only to public off icials was also administered by telephone to 40 public officials
                    from the same area. The sample was comprised of both elected (state
                    representatives, parish council, and town aldermen) and appointed officials
                    (levee and port commissioners). Seventeen of the public officials were
                    appointed, 23 were elected. Cooperation by the public officials called to
                    complete the survey was very good.


                                                       FINDINGS



                    Both residents (79%) and public officials (95%) are very concerned about
                    coastal erosion. Residents (42%) believed that the principal cause of the
                    erosion is the natural processes while public officials believe that it is caused
                    by human actions (38%) or by both natural and human (42%). The most
                    serious current effect of the erosion is seen by the residents as wildlife habitat
                    loss (42%). Public officials believe it is land loss (35%). Most residents
                    believe they have not yet been personally affected by erosion (72%) but almost
                    the same number (65%) believe they will be in the future. This future affect
                    will be by the actual loss of land (42%).


                    Public officials believe that their communities are currently being affected
                    (78%); residents are less likely to believe so (50%). Residents believe that the
                    current aspects of erosion which are affecting the communities are land loss
                    (35%) and flooding (31 %). Public officials are more focused on land'loss









                    Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                13

                    (54%). Residents believe 'that they have no personal control over erosion
                    (36%) while public officials are less likely to report no control at all (18%).
                    These perceptions are related to whether the respondents have taken personal
                    action toward erosion: only 41 % of residents have while 72% of the public
                    officials have. Residents are more optimistic that communities can have some
                    control over erosion (25%); public officials are even more optimistic (47%).


                    Both residents (81 %) and public officials (82%) perceive that their communities
                    will have trouble surviving in light of coastal erosion. There was almost
                    unanimous concurrence on the part of both residents and public officials that
                    erosion increases vulnerability to hurricanes, affects the culture, and that the

                    loss of barrier islands causes faster marsh loss.



                    Resident believe that scientists can prevent land loss (61 %); public officials are
                    even more optimistic (73%). There is less optimism by residents that scientists
                    can restore land (47%); public officials are equally as optimistic about
                    restoration than they are about prevention (75%). The difference may be due
                    to the amount and means of exposure to information about coastal erosion.
                    Residents receive their information mainly from the media (56%) and some
                    from personal observation (32%). Public officials also personally observe it
                    (38%) but receive information more often from other sources such as reports,
                    presentations and experts. (43%).


                    Only about a third of the residents (38%) believe that the state has sufficient
                    resources to address coastal erosion. Public officials are even less optimistic
                    (30%). There is more optimism that government will take the action -necessary
                    to prevent erosion. About half of the residents (51 %) and two thirds of the
                    public officials (63%) are somewhat optimistic that this will occur. When
                    asked whether one of the responses which the government should take is








                   Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                              14

                   preventing development in erosion-vulnerable areas, 59% of the residents and
                   49% of the public officials said yes.


                   Even more drastic responses to erosion were posed to the respondents. Half
                   of the residents and 38% of the public officials indicated that they believed
                   their communities would consider relocating. The numbers increased when
                   respondents were asked if they thought that their communities would have to
                   consider relocation. Some 65% of the residents and 70% of the public officials
                   said yes. When asked if they would personally relocate, 65% of the residents
                   said they would while less than half of the public officials said they would
                   (48%). Neither residents (only 33%) nor public officials (22%) would consider
                   encouraging their children to move away. When analysis is focused only on
                   those closest to the Gulf, and thus more vulnerable to erosion and also most
                   traditional culturally, respondents are themselves less willing to move but more
                   willing to encourage their children to move. They expressed a belief that the
                   younger generation was less interested in coastal occupations and activities and
                   thus less able to adapt to coastal life--especially with the added threat of
                   coastal erosion--than is the older generation.


                   The final topic discussed with the respondents was global warming and the
                   related phenomenon of sea level rise. Only 18% of the residents and about a
                   third of the public officials (31 %) believe that global warming poses a very
                   serious threat to coastal Louisiana. When asked whether global warming will
                   affect erosion, 71 % of the residents agreed and 100% of the public officials
                   believed this to be the case. About half of the residents (58%) and three
                   quarters of the public officials (75%) believe that parishes should prepare for
                   global warming.








                    Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                15

                              QUESTIONS ASKED OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS ONLY



                    Public officials were asked some questions not asked of the residents. The
                    majority of the public officials were aware of the State Coastal Wetlands
                    Conservation and Restoration Program. Almost all public officials believed that
                    the program would benefit their community (96%); about a third also perceived
                    that the program would cause their program problems (35%). Ways in which
                    they perceived the state program would be beneficial included, in addition to
                    responding to erosion, the provision of funds to the communities, enabling a
                    joint program between the state and local communities and help to the fishing
                    industry. Problems were also seen as linked with the program: the confl          ict
                    between seeking preservation of the wetlands and barrier island beach
                    restoration; restrictions to development which the program would have; and the
                    fact that the program might permit extension of ongoing conflict between
                    developers and environmentalists.


                           PLANNING FOR THE IMPACT OF COASTAL EROSION



                    Public officials were asked a series of questions about planning for the impact
                    of coastal erosion. Sixty percent indicated that their communities had done
                    some planning for the impact of coastal erosion on the community's
                    infrastructure, 50% for impact on the development of residential, commercial
                    or industrial sites and about one third for impact on property values.


                    Finally, the nature and adequacy of resources to plan for coastal erosion were
                    explored with the public officials. Only 22% of the respondents felt that local
                    public officials have sufficient regulatory resources to deal with coastal erosion;
                    even fewer (5%) feel that they have the financial resources. When asked to
                    list the existing ordinances which they might use to deal with erosion, the








                   Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                             16

                   following were described (the political unit to which it pertains is in
                   parentheses):
                            beach protection ordinances for Grand Isle (local)
                            oil field dredging regulations (parish/local)
                            flood protection levee ordinances (local)
                            no wake zones (local)
                            no net loss wetlands policy (federal)
                            Coastal Zone Management requirements (state/federal)
                            National Flood Insurance Program requirements (federal)
                            Environmental Protection Agency regulations (federal).
                   In addition to indicating existing ordinances which can be used to address
                   coastal erosion problems, public officials were asked to describe the ordinances
                   that they would like to see enacted. The following were the answers they

                   gave.



                   There was tension between where the public officials felt the authority to
                   regulate should lie. Seven respondents argued in favor of giving more authority
                   to local governments in giving development permits.            Conversely, five
                   respondents felt that the federal government should step in. Other answers
                   which were given by one or two respondents each include:
                            put rip rap and concrete on all shorelines (local)
                            make companies fill in canals (parish/local)
                            use parish land for mitigation (parish)
                            have a comprehensive zoning ordinance (parish)
                          - create drainage and levee districts (state)
                         - legislate corporate responsibility (state)
                            place a moratorium on canal construction (state)
                            have state be more aggressive (state)
                            prohibit building near shorelines (federal)
                            break up strong federal regulations (federal)








                   Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                             17

                            cut down on Corps of Engineers red tape (federal)
                            make Coastal Zone Management stronger (federal)
                            have FEMA enact ordinances (federal)

                            do erosion control on private property (federal/state/local)
                            coordinate local, state and federal efforts
                            have standing permits to speed up process.
                   In line with some of the suggestions made by the public officials to this
                   previous question, a final question was asked about whether they would
                   support state restrictions on residential, commercial or industrial development
                   to deal with coastal erosion. Three quarters of the public officials said yes.


                                                   DISCUSSION



                   What implications for responding to coastal erosion do these findings have?
                   First, awareness of the threat of erosion is high both for residents and public
                   officials. As with many environmental threats, perception is that more harm
                   will come in the future rather than in the present. Such a perception reduces
                   people's willingness to take action.        The residents' recognition that
                   communities might have to respond by relocating implies that,the severity,
                   albeit "down the road", is perceived. A greater willingness by residents than
                   public officials to control development in threatened areas should give public
                   officials more confidence that if ordinances were to be developed, there would
                   be considerable community support. When, of course, it is someone else's
                   property which is restricted rather than one's own, such a response is easier
                   to give. Proposing a package of physical projects and nonstructural actions--
                   ordinances and planning--is likely to be easier with such a high awareness by
                   residents (and public officials) of the problem of erosion and the perceived
                   severity of it.








                   Shirley Laska, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                              is

                   Public officials are definitely concerned that their communities not be affected
                   by erosion. While they perceive the problem as equally or more serious than
                   the residents, they are more confident that things can be done to reduce the
                   threat. What they do not currently have are adequate fiscal and regulatory
                   resources to respond. It is hoped that the workshop and the model ordinances
                   which have been prepared for the workshop will assist in responding pro-
                   actively to coastal erosion and sea level rise.









                                                                                                  19

                                      PLANNING IN THE COASTAL ZONE



                                                 Rod E. Emmer, Ph.D.


                   With population growth after World War 11 development in the Louisiana coastal
                   zone increased significantly. Subdivisions, commercial strips, and industrial
                   facilities expanded along the higher natural levees and began to occupy the
                   lower parts of these ridges, adjacent swamps and marshes, and areas subject
                   to erosion, lands once consciously avoided. Runoff and discharges from
                   development resulted in pollution of bays, bayous, and wetlands, threatening
                   the public health, safety, and community well-being. Sea level rise and erosion
                   now compound these problems threatening the existence of many
                   communities. Planning can help reduce impacts of sea level rise and erosion.


                   Federal, state, and local governments address coastal problems in distinctly
                   different manners. The federal government does not directly control land use,
                   except on those tracts they own, such as wildlife management areas and
                   military reservations. Federal programs and policies do, however, indirectly
                   influence activities and planning by state and local governments and the private
                   sector. The Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection
                   Agency (EPA) potentially exert the most influence on the distribution of
                   activities. The Corps administers Sections 9 and 10 of the River and Harbor
                   Act of 1899 (33U.S.C.401-406) which protects navigable waters from
                   obstructions and pollution.        Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
                   (33U.S.C. 1251-1376) makes the Corps partners with the EPA in regulating the
                   disposal of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States. Section 401
                   of the Clean Water Act requires that a project be certified in compliance with
                   the state water quality standards or a federal permit will be denied. EPA
                   through Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act can prohibit or restrict the









                   Rod E. Emmer, Ph. D. June 2, 1992                                              20


                   placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States. Plus EPA
                   requires a permit for a point source of discharge.


                   Other federal agencies influence coastal activities. Among these regulators are
                   the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the National Flood
                   Insurance Program (42U.S.C.4001-4128). FEMA sets performance standards
                   to reduce the potential damage from stormsurges and high water. The Coastal
                   Barrier Resources Act 0 6U.S.C.3501-351 0), administered by the U.S. Fish and
                   Wildlife Service prohibits federal subsidies on specified barrier islands and
                   beaches. Many federal programs apply to activities in the coastal zone (Emmer
                   and Calvert 1992) and may modify the uses of      an area, thereby reducing the
                   adverse impacts of sea level rise and erosion.


                   States retain the power to control land use through the Tenth Amendment to
                   the Constitution (Barrows 1982). States can plan for and regulate activities
                   that affect the public health, safety, and welfare, but most do not normally
                   practice comprehensive planning. An early attempt at state planning was tried
                   in Louisiana (Emmer et al. In review). The 1936 Legislature created the State
                   Planning Commission to develop and adopt a master plan for the physical
                   development of the state. The effort was not favorably received because the
                   Commission was never fully funded. In the 1940s the Louisiana Department
                   of Public Works was formed and made responsible for the preparation of the
                   state's master plan. Except for some public works projects, no master plan
                   was ever developed. In 1968 the State Planning Office was created by
                   Executive Order and authorized by the legislature. The office, assuming some
                   planning responsibilities from the Department of Public Works, was charged
                   with coordinating a comprehensive plan for the state. But a plan remained
                   illusive here as well. Over the years, the State Planning Office shrunk in size,
                   although its responsibilities remained the same. By 1986 the State Planning









                    Rod E. Emmer, Ph. D. June 2, 1992                                              21


                    Office was so reduced in status that the governor transferred the staff and its
                    duties to the Division of Administration. The State Planning Office ceased to
                    exist in 1989 when it became part of the Office of Planning and Budget and
                    was fully integrated into the structure of the Division of Administration.


                    But state agencies are not completely inactive in having a say in what can take
                    place. State government, like the federal agencies, indirectly influences what
                    takes place in the coastal zone. The Coastal Management Division, Department
                    of Natural Resources administers a permitting system that applies to activities
                    in the state defined coastal zone. The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
                    reviews and comments on permit applications in order to protect the renewable
                    resources within the state. They also administer a permit program for activities
                    affecting state designated scenic streams. The Department of Environmental
                    Quality addresses water quality through a permit system on discharges and the
                    location and operation of some activities, such as landfills. The Department of
                    Health and Hospitals monitors and regulates discharges of sewage and oversees
                    the oyster and shell fishing industries with regard to human health. All of these
                    programs are part of the state system, but there exists no comprehensive
                    planning for what occurs in the coastal zone or anywhere else for that matter.




                    Regional planning, a potential since 1956, had to wait until 1973 for the
                    establishment of the eight regional planning districts boundaries. Regional
                    planning commissions (RPC) are mandated to prepare and, from time to time,
                    revise, amend, extend or add to a regional development plan (LRS 33:135)
                    recommending policies for the physical development of the planning area. The
                    RPC does not regulate development, a power that stays with the municipalities.
                    RPCs' functions do not supersede municipal or parish p     'lanning commissions
                    when they exist within a regional planning area (LRS 33:137). In those cases








                   Rod E. Emmer, Ph. D. June e-, 1992                                             22


                   where a municipality or a parish has a functioning planning commission, the
                   RPC may recommend measures for the coordination of plans or it may
                   recommend plans for local adoption. Usually, the RPC serves as a consultant
                   to the local planning commission.


                   Planning and control of land use resides with local government and has for
                   about 75 years. In response a successful legal challenge to piecemeal zoning
                   in New Orleans, the 1918 Legislature granted cities with populations over
                   50,000 the ability to enact zoning ordinances. In 1926, the Legislature gave
                   municipalities (defined by the Lawrason Act (Act 136 of 1898) as having 5,000
                   or more inhabitants) the power to zone and provided that zoning be "in
                   accordance with a comprehensive plan." The greatest impact on planning
                   came in 1946 with the passage of Acts 300 and 319 which gave more specific
                   guidance to planning within municipal and parish governments, respectively.
                   Limits were set on planning commission sizes; adequately funded professional
                   support staffs were authorized; and the planning commission shall make and
                   adopt a master plan for the physical development of the parish or municipality.
                   A surge of planning took place in Louisiana with the influx of Section 701 (Title
                   1 of the Housing Act of 1954) money. Numerous parishes and municipalities
                   took advantage of the 701 program and had plans developed; unfortunately,
                   many plans remain on shelves awaiting implementation and are now obsolete.




                   Local governments have the authority to implement plans within their
                   jurisdiction through zoning, subdivision regulations, building codes,
                   miscellaneous ordinances, and special programs that protect the public health,
                   safety, and welfare (Kean 1974; Mumph(ey et al. 1976). Zoning is the division
                   of the community into zones and districts that can be used for selected and
                   predetermined activities, thereby separating incompatible land uses.








                   Rod E. Emmer, Ph. D. June 2, 1992                                             23


                   Subdivision regulations control the division and size of lots, provide for
                   infrastructure, direct the placement of buildings on the lots, and specify the
                   amenities and services to be provided before the lots can be marketed and
                   structures built. Building codes establish minimum standards for material and
                   construction of the structure within a community.


                   Planning has not become an accepted component of local government (Emmer
                   et al. In review) except in the more urban areas of the coastal zone. Attention
                   of local decisionmakers focUses on short-term programs that have immediate
                   and readily observable results by constituents. Because planning is long-term,
                   does not provide instantaneous satisfaction, and is not a high profile office
                   often seen by voters, planning has been demoted on the list of local priorities.
                   Communities may select any one of several methods for showing displeasure
                   with or no interest in planning. Planners are simply not hired. If a planning
                   office exists, it is underfunded and/or inadequately staffed to do the job. Or
                   the staff may have too many assignments that are only peripherally related to
                   planning so minimal time remains for preparing plans and programs.


                   Other factors affect the role of planning in the community. Many coastal
                   residents feel planning dictates what people can do with their land, a fact that
                   is not acceptable especially outside incorporated boundaries. No one seems to
                   have convinced the public that planning is directly related to health and safety
                   issues and the well-being of the community. Everyone benefits when the
                   community meets selected standards.


                   In general, some form of planning for twenty to thirty years into the future is
                   considered important by local planners and some public officials (Emmer et al.
                   In review). However, it is not considered to be practical at this time, in part
                   due to economic conditions and political considerations. Police jurors and








                   Rod E. Emmer, Ph. D. June 2, 1992                                             24


                   council members are apparently not sufficiently impressed with what planning
                   offers to fund greater efforts. Without their support, little can be done. Day
                   to day issues are treated as they come, leaving little if any time and no sense
                   of importance for completing, updating, or using comprehensive plans. The
                   parishes and municipalities are practicing a type of reactionary planning where
                   issues and problems are handled as they surface, and then the most serious
                   first. It is evident that few communities practice comprehensive planning or are
                   even updating the Section 701 plans. Many decisions rely on plans that are as
                   much as 30 years old. It appears that only the larger cities and selected
                   parishes are trying to keep their plans current.


                   Planning in coastal parishes and municipalities is in reality a reactionary
                   process, rather than anticipatory. Planning owes its direction and achievements
                   to federal and state guidelines promulgated for flood damage reduction,
                   protection of the public health and safety, and conservation. Beyond these
                   basic federal and state requirements little coordinated planning was actually
                   accomplished and most communities still lack comprehensive plans and the
                   ability to formulate them. Finally, communities do have the authority to
                   implement plans.


                   Assistance in developing and implementing plans is available to communities.
                   The Louisiana Urban Technical Assistance Committee (LUTAC) at the University
                   of New Orleans councils communities throughout Louisiana. Annually, the
                   University of New Orleans gives a seminar for new planning commissioners.
                   The Louisiana Section, American Planning Association, periodically offers short
                   courses on planning issues.       Finally, federal and state grants sponsor
                   workshops such as this one on sea level rise. More and more citizens and
                   decisionmakers are becoming involved in planning.








                  Rod E. Emmer, Ph. D. June 2, 1992                                       25



                  REFERENCES:



                  Barrows, R.L. 1982 The Roles of Federal, State and Local Governments in
                           Land-Use Planning.    NPA Report No. 197.       National Planning
                           Association. Washington, D.C. 26 p.


                  Emmer,  R.E., A. Rheams, and F. Wagner In review. Offshore Petroleum
                           Development and the Comprehensive Planning Process. Prepared
                           under MMS Contract to the College of Urban and Public Affairs,
                           University of New Orleans, New Orleans, La. 63 p. plus appendix.


                  Emmer, R.E. and L.S. Calvert 1992 Under contract to the Lake Pontchartrain
                           Basin Foundation. University of New Orleans, New Orleans, La.


                  Kean, R.G. 1974 Legal Handbook for Local Governments. Codes Study No.
                           6c. Capital Region Planning Commission. Baton Rouge, La. 70 p.




                  Mumphrey, A.J., J.S. Brooks, and J.C. Miller 1976 Urban Development in the

                           Louisiana Coastal Zone: Problems and Guidelines. Urban Studies

                           Institute, University of New Orleans. Coastal Resources Program,
                           Department of Transportation and Development. Baton Rouge, La.
                           142 p.








                    Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                           26






                                    COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS



                                              Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D.
                                      Ashley Salmen, Graduate Assistant



                                                  INTRODUCTION



                    Comprehensive planning is a form of deliberate intervention into the
                    development process. In practice, the development process is best viewed as
                    having two major components:
                              1. A chronological series of sequence of events with actions taking
                    place at each step requiring completion prior to going further.
                              2. A series of decision points which emphasize the interaction of
                    planning (governmental or administrative), financial, and legal (judicial and
                    legislative) factors and constraints.


                    The sequence of events and decision points serve to draw the major actors in
                    development together in order for the action to proceed. Goodchild and
                    Munton (1986) have outlined a model of development and planning that
                    emphasizes the traditional delineation of roles: most planning originates within
                    the public sector while the source of development energy is the private sector.
                    In this model, as in most models of development and planning, the private
                    sector is seen to be constrained in its efforts by publicly imposed and enforced
                    (or waived) legal restraints and planning controls. However, the Goodchild and
                    Munton (        ) model goes a step further by explicitly recognizing that the
                    public sector is not simply a regulatory actor; rather, the public sector








                    Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                              27

                    increasingly acts as a source of development capital, as a providor of
                    infrastructure, and as a co-partner in winning citizen acceptance of a project.
                    In fact, the public sector in many areas, under such rubrics as economic
                    development, may be the primary catalyst for development to occur. This is
                    most particularly true when the local economy is in a condition of stagnation
                    and is not attracting outside capital.


                    Further, there are four decision nodes required in the planning process through
                    which a development decision must proceed :
                               1. land allocation for a particular use (usually done in a land use plan
                    or a zoning ordinance);
                               2. land sale to a developer (often done by option contingent on
                    conditions of planning approval and financing);
                               3. awarding of preliminary planning permission to develop under
                    agreed upon conditions said to be mutually binding; and
                               4. granting of permits to begin construction.
                    At each of these decision points, each of the key actors; planners, developers,
                    or landowners; has to decide whether to proceed or to revise the project to
                    meet the objections of the others or, possibly, to abandon (or oppose) the
                    project.


                    While each of the major actors has considerable flexibility in determining their
                    behavior at each step in the process, the public sector is under an increasingly
                    likely to be enforced legal obligation to have explicitly stated well before
                    development has been contemplated just what constraints on the use of land
                    must be enforced in the public interest and must further be prepared, if
                    challenged, to justify these constraints as a proper use of the police power. If
                    expropriation of land is envisioned, for example, the requirement for the
                    statement of a public purpose underlying this action is well understood as is the
                    payment of adequate monetary compensation. If the police power is used, the









                    Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                             28

                    question of a regulatory taking may have to be dealt with; under some
                    circumstances, it too may lead to the awarding of compensation to property
                    owners. Of recent vintage, courts have been willing to award damages if a
                    regulatory taking can be documented to have occurred.


                    Barrett and Whitting (1983), in their "development pipeline" model, using the
                    same set of major actors in the development process, go further. They agree
                    that the development process is really a series of functions or activities that
                    bring together resources and control agents in a carefully arranged framework.
                    In this framework the planner acts more like a regulator. In fact, as the agent
                    of a regulatory body, he has a responsibility to develop and maintain a
                    consistent, fair, and equitable set of development controls in advance of any
                    developer-planner interactions. In the ensuring interactions, there is a mutual
                    interdependence characterized by a "resource exhange" whereby one type of
                    resource (power) is exchanged for another (land).


                    Thus, the development process is a structured series of interactions and
                    transactions amongst the involved major actors. The nature of the interactions
                    vary because there are differences between the actors. For example, the
                    planners are involved almost exclusively with the planning process but are not
                    usually taking an economic risk in the transactions in which they participate.
                    In fact, it is possibly illegal for them to do so. A developer ostensibly has more
                    freedom since he can, given the mobility of capital, look to alternate investment
                    possibilities if the risks look less elsewhere or the potential rewards greater in
                    an alternate site. The degree to which a developer becomes or remains
                    interested in development correlates very positively with the perception he
                    holds as to the chances for a successful project.


                    The plan ner-developer interactions are structured both by legislation and
                    administrative regulations emanating therefrom. To describe the planner









                     Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                              29

                     structure in the development process we turn first to the statement of planning
                     power generally given to local governments in Louisiana:


                     "Every parish and every municipality may make, adopt, amend, extend, add to,
                     or carry out official plans as provided in this subpart, and may create by
                     ordinance, a planning commission with the powers and duties herein set forth
                     and may appropriate funds for the commission". La. R.S. 33:102


                     Article 6, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution authorizes local government

                     subdivisions to :

                               1. adopt regulations for land use, zoning,and historic preservation,
                     which authority is declared to be a public purpose.
                               2. create commissions and districts to implement those restrictions.
                               3. create commissions and districts to implement those restrictions.
                               4. review decisions of any such commissions.

                     (La. Constitution, 1974, Article 6, Section 7)



                     Plan ne r-developer interactions are, therefore, supposed to be largely carried out
                     through the vehicle of planning commissions. A General Statement as to the
                     Duties of a Planning Commission:
                               1. A parish planning commission shall make and adopt a master plan
                     for the physical development of the unincorporated territory of a parish.
                               2. A municipal planning commission shall make and adopt a master
                     plan for the physical development of the municipality. (La. R.S. 33:106)


                     Thus, both the Louisiana statutes and the state constitution not only authorize
                     planning by local subdivisions, they declare this authority in the constitution to
                     be a public purpose. Many subsequent court decisions have established the
                     propriety of local government planning as an exercise -of the police power.
                     However, planners in Louisiana work under enabling legislation (La. R.S. 33: et








                    Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                             30

                    seq.) that dates to the late 1920's and is based largely on a model of
                    planning ... master or "end state" planning ... that has been largely abandoned in
                    favor of more interactive planning involving developer-planner negotiations prior
                    to a public hearing as a prelude to receiving permission to develop. In turn, this
                    has led to planning professionals taking a more direct role in the planner-
                    developer negotiations than was the case in the era in which the planning
                    enabling legislation was written. Such -activity on the part of the planner,
                    unless he has actively involved his or her planning commission and unless this
                    planning commission has been properly appointed and operated as required may
                    result in a challenge to the role of the planner alleging that the public interest
                    has been compromised by the preliminary planner-developer review discussions
                    held without the presence of the public. This, in turn, may lead to a plan being
                    declared procedurally flawed by a court or to a planner even being found to
                    have acted b eyond the scope of his or her authority.



                    This does not mean that no preliminary planner-developer discussions should
                    take place. However, the planner should insure that certain prerequisite
                    planning actions have been taken prior to any discussions and those actions
                    have been ratified by a properly appointed planning commission, because those
                    actions laid out as zoning ordinances or subdivision regulations serve as the
                    planning parameters in which the negotiations will take place. The planner is
                    acting as the employee or agent of the planning commission which body is
                    legally delegated the planning responsibility including the authority to place
                    limits on the use of private property in the public interest.
                    The planner cannot simply fail to plan. The position of the planning authority
                    is pivotal to the development process, although failure to act may undermine
                    this authority. There is also an affirmative duty to plan as attested by the use
                    of the word "shall" in Section 106 above. See also Christopher Estates, Inc. v.

                    East Baton Rouge Parish, 413 So. 2d 1336 (1982).








                    Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                           31

                    Thus, in our model, the planning actor is in a strong position to make and enact
                    regulations enforcing the use of land in a community. His/her discretion in
                    these matters is certainly not absolute. Higher levels of government will
                    intervene as "superior sovereigns" and will preempt the local right to oversee
                    land use regulation, in full or in part, in many areas, both geographic and
                    functional, when a higher governmental interest justifies such action. To
                    illustrate, the definition of what constitutes "wetlands" has been largely pre-
                    empted by the federal government while the permitting of drilling platforms or
                    group homes are issues that have been taken over either entirely by the state
                    or are allowed to be controlled locally only so far as state law permits.


                    It is also incumbent on local general purpose units of government and planning
                    authorities organized under them to plan for the general welfare of their
                    populace. The law clearly sets forth this responsibility and the public has a
                    right to expect a certain level of safety from natural hazard to person or
                    property when a taxpaying resident of a community. Planning is supposed to
                    have taken place and regulations enacted on the basis of information therein
                    derived which will serve to protect the public from the risk of loss of life or
                    property to the maximum extent possible.


                    A leading case on point here is Eschette v. City of New Orleans (245 So. 2d
                    183 (1981)) wherein the City of New Orleans was found liable for damages for
                    having granted subdivision approval to new homes in.an area which was known
                    to be a flood hazard due to inadequate drainage. The Louisiana Supreme Court

                    noted:

                    "The city had the power to grant or withhold subdivision permits. Knowing
                    that the granting of new permits would result in flooding, it nonetheless
                    granted them." (245 So.2d 183)









                    Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                            32

                    "the city, through its agents and employees had known for many years of
                    dangerous drainage situation in an area where plaintiff's home was built and
                    that the city had deliberately and therefore maliciously authorized new
                    subdivisions causing flooding during any ordinary heavy rainfall." (245 So.2d
                    183)



                    Another case on point involved Shreveport which city elevated the level of
                    water in Cross Lake in order to insure sufficient water supply for the city
                    waterworks. When flooding insued to private homes, the city claimed
                    governmental immunity under the state's sovereign immunity protection
                    asserting that the city had been "operating a lake recreation area in like manner
                    as a state agency". The La. Supreme Court held that the city had caused the
                    damages in its capacity as a municipality and was not acting as a state agency
                    and was, therefore, not immune for damages caused to camps, cottages, and
                    private homes surrounding the lake. (Hamilton v. Shreveport, 174 So. 2d 529
                    (1965))



                    Finally, Article 2315 of the Louisiana Civil Code provides:
                    "..every act whatever of man that causes damage to another, obliges him by
                    whose fault it happened to repair it."


                    The elements of a cause of action are: fault, causation, and damage. A
                    governmental subdivision which has the legal and exclusive responsibility to
                    plan as do local governments in Louisiana, but does not do so and thereby
                    allows damages to be incurred by the public who relied on planning and
                    subsequent regulation to minimize the danger of hazards may be held to be at
                    fault if damage later occurs. A governmental subdivision that exercises its
                    planning responsibility but does so incompletely or in such a way as to fail to
                    take constructive notice of a dangerous condition and thus allow construction
                    to take place in areas where that dangerous condition later causes damage to








                   Ralph E. Thayei, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                              33

                   persons or property may also have contributed to the cause of the damage.
                   And, under a stricter standard of governmental liability that has been
                   forthcoming over the past ten years, monetary damages may now be assessed
                   against governmental subdivisions generally and, in certain conditions, even
                   against governmental officials in their private capacities if those officials who
                   possess the power to act can be shown to have failed to act affirmatively to
                   carry out the governmental responsibilities assigned to them. Most elected
                   officials will not be held to this standard of liability, but such protection does
                   not extend to non-elected officials who are not granted an equivalent wide
                   degree of sovereign immunity. The only defense is to be able to demonstrate
                   that a good faith effort has been made both to identify potential hazards to the
                   public and then to implement controls, sanctions, or regulations that will serve
                   to minimize the danger to person and property within their area of jurisdiction.



                   REFERENCES:



                   Barrett and Whitting 1983 Local Authorities and Land Supply. School for
                             Advanced Urban Studies, University of Bristol.


                   Goodchild R, and R. Munton 1986 Development and the Land Owner: An
                             Analysis of the British Experience (Allen and Unwin, London).








                   Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                      34




                                    MODEL SEA LEVEL RISE ORDINANCE





                                       Ordinance No.



                                                                    PARISH





                   SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS



                   1. Title.

                   It is often desirable to establish a name by which the ordinance may be
                   commonly known or referred. This admittedly simple step can make the
                   ordinance more accessible to the public and reduce the possibility of the
                   ordinance being confused with other legislative initiatives.


                             EXAMPLE: This ordinance may be referred to as the

                   Parish Sea Level Rise Ordinance.



                   2. Purpose.
                   This should be a brief statement of the ordinance's principal purpose to provide
                   a context for understanding what the ordinance is actually intended to do and
                   how any regulatory programs covered by the ordinance are to be administered.
                   The purpose clause often contains a brief statement of facts to establish the
                   need for the ordinance. To the extent possible, the purpose clause should also
                   indicate the source of the enacting body's authority to adopt the ordinance.








                    Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                        35


                              EXAMPLE: It is recognized that projected increases in sea levels will
                    have significant adverse effects on the coastal resources and communities of
                                        Parish unless adequate measures are taken to plan for rising
                    sea levels. The principal purpose of this ordinance is to provide the
                    necessary authority and procedures to prescribe appropriate land use and
                    control measures to anticipate and acc     'ommodate changes to the Parish's
                    coastal areas resulting from rising seas. This ordinance is based upon the
                    authority, guidelines, and policies set forth in Louisiana Revised Statutes
                    33:101 et seq. and 33:4721 et seq., the Final Environmental Impact
                    Statement of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program and the
                                       Parish Coastal Zone Management Plan.




                    SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS



                    The definition section should contain concise definitions of all significant terms
                    used in the ordinance. This is especially important in the cases of technical
                    terms and words or phrases that will be used as shorthand references.
                    Whenever possible definitions should be standardized those found in other
                    generally applicable laws, such as the Federal Clean Water Act or the Coastal
                    Zone Management Act, in order to avoid confusion and to make it easier to
                    understand how those various laws fit together.


                              EXAMPLE: When used in this ordinance, the following terms shall
                    have the indicated meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:


                              (1) Administrator: This shall mean the Administrator of the Coastal
                    Management Section of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.








                    Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                      36


                              (2)   Coastal zone:     This shall mean the coastal waters and

                    adjacentshorelands within the boundaries of the coastal zone established in
                    Section 213.4 of Act 361 of the 1978 Louisiana Legislature (LA. R.S.
                    49:213.1-213.21).



                              (3) Department: This shall mean the                             Parish
                    Department of Public Safety.



                    SECTION 3. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT



                    3.1 Sea Level Rise Area.

                    In this section the boundaries of the area subject to the ordinance are
                    described. If the boundaries are not known, or are subject to change, the
                    procedure for establishing those boundaries should be set forth. Care should
                    be taken to make sure the boundaries are drawn based upon sufficient objective

                    criteria to be defensible.



                    3.2 Administrating Agency.
                    In this section the agency responsible for administering the rising sea level
                    program is identified and the scope of its powers are set forth.


                              EXAMPLE: The                            Parish Department of Public
                              Safety shall have the responsibility and authority to implement and
                    administer the programs created or authorized by this ordinance.


                    3.3 Sea Level Permit Requirement.
                    This section should set forth the types of activities that are subject to the
                    permitting provisions of the ordinance.









                   Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                      37


                             EXAMPLE: The following shall be considered to be uses or activities
                   requiring a sea level rise permit if such use or activity takes place in the sea

                   level rise area.  -



                             (1) Dredging, filling, or discharging of dredged or fill material.


                             (2) Levee siting, construction, operation, and maintenance.


                             (3) The siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of hurricane
                   and flood protection facilities.


                             (4) The siting, construction, and operation of urban, energy,
                   recreational, or industrial developments, including residential, commercial,
                   industrial, governmental, and transportation structures and facilities.


                             (5) Any other activities or projects that would require a permit, or
                   other form of consent or authorization from the United States Army Corps of
                   Engineers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Louisiana
                   Department of Natural Resources, or the Louisiana Department of
                   Environmental Quality.




                   3.4 Activities Not Requiring a Sea Level Rise Permit.
                   In this section those activities exempt from the permitting provisions of the

                   ordinance are listed.



                             EXAMPLE: The following activities shall not require a sea level rise
                   permit.









                    Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                      38


                              (1) Structures in existence or actually under construction on the date

                    this ordinance becomes effective.



                              (2)   Agricultural, forestry, and aquaculture activities on lands
                    consistently used in the past for such activities.


                              (3) Construction, modification, and maintenance of navigational aids.


                              (4) Normal maintenance and routine repairs of existing structures or
                    structures actually under construction on the date this ordinance becomes

                    effective.



                              (5) Activities which the Department determines by rule to be so
                    minor or transitory as to not impair the purposes of this ordinance.


                    3.5 Permit Applications.
                    This section would contain the basic procedures for submitting an application
                    for a sea level rise permit.


                              EXAMPLE: Any person seeking to obtain a sea level rise permit shall
                    be required to file a completed permit application, including the payment the
                    required fees, with the Department. The Department shall develop application
                    forms and instructions which shall be made available to any interested persons.
                    The application form shall contain the same information required by the United
                    States Army Corps of Engineers for permits issued under Section 404 of the
                    Clean Water Act plus any additional information that the Department
                    determines to be reasonably necessary for proper evaluation of the activity and
                    the application.








                    Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                        39


                              Separate applications must be made for unrelated projects and
                    projects involving noncontiguous parcels of land.



                    3.6 Fee Schedule.

                    In this section would be a description of the fees required for the submission
                    of a permit application.


                    3.7 Processing the Permit Application.
                    This section would set forth the process to be used in reviewing and processing
                    permit applications.


                    EXAMPLE: (1) When a completed application is received, the Department shall
                    promptly acknowledge receipt thereof, assign the application an identification
                    number, and inform the applicant of that identification number.


                              (2) Within       days following receipt of the completed application,
                    the Department shall publish a public notice in the official journal of the Parish
                    indicating that the application has been filed, the identity of the applicant, and
                    the location and nature of the activity covered by the application. The public
                    notice shall also indicate that copies of the application may be obtained from
                    the Department and that the public has the right to submit comments about the
                    application to the Department for a period of 30 days from the date the notice
                    is published.


                              (3) The Department shall evaluate the application and any comments
                    received from the public during the comment period, including any extensions
                    of the comment period as the Department may in its discretion grant, in order
                    to ascertain its compliance with the ordinance.








                    Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                        40


                               (4) If following that review, the Department concludes that
                    public hearings are appropriate or that additional information is necessary to
                    assess the application adequately, it may set such hearings or request such
                    additional information from the applicant. In the event additional information
                    is requested from the applicant, the applicant shall have a period of         days
                    to supply that information to the Department. If the applicant fails to fully
                    comply with the request within that period of time, the application shall be
                    deemed withdrawn and the applicant shall be so notified.


                               (5) The Department's final decision on an application shall be based
                    on its evaluation of all of the information presented. If the Department
                    concludes that the activity for which the permit is sought is consistent with the
                    purposes of this ordinance, it shall issue the permit, subject to any conditions
                    the Department reasonably deems appropriate. In all other circumstances the
                    Department shall deny the permit. The Department shall promptly notify the
                    applicant in writing of its decision. Notice of all permit decisions shall also be
                    published in the official journal of the Parish within        days following the
                    decision on the permit. The Department shall also prepare a written record
                    summarizing the evidence and analysis supporting its decision. That report
                    shall be made available to the applicant and the public.


                    3.8 Public Hearings.
                    This section would set forth the circumstances and procedures under which
                    public hearings may be held.


                               EXAMPLE: The Department may hold public hearings on any permit
                    application, or application for a permit renewal or modification, if it determines
                    in its discretion that such hearings would be beneficial. Public hearings are
                    generally appropriate when there is significant public opposition to the









                     Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                          41


                     application, when other governmental entities request a hearing, or in
                     controversial cases involving significant economic, social, or environmental
                     issues. If the Department decides to hold a public hearing the Department shall
                     publish a notice at least     days in advance in the official journal of the Parish.



                     3.9 Term of Permits.

                     This section would set forth the maximum period for which a permit will be

                     valid.



                     3.10 Permit Conditions.

                     This section would set forth the general conditions that are applicable to all
                     permits as well. It can also authorize the permit granting agency to impose
                     additional conditions that it feels are appropriate.


                     EXAMPLE: By accepting a permit, the applicant agrees to:
                     (1) Carry out or perform the use in accordance with the plans and specifications
                     approved by the Department.
                     (2) Comply with any permit conditions that the Department in its discretion
                     deems appropriate.


                     (3) Adjust, alter, or remove, at the applicant's expense, any structure or other
                     physical evidence of the permitted use if the Department, in its reasonable
                     judgment, determines it to be beyond the scope of the approved use or if the
                     structure or other physical evidence of the use is abandoned.
                     (4) Certify to the Department that the any permitted construction was done in
                     accordance with the permit.
                     (5) Allow the Department and its agents reasonable opportunity to inspect the
                     premises, any structures constructed under color of the permit, and any
                     associated records to ascertain compliance with the permit.








                    Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                       42


                    (6)  Indemnify and hold the Parish, the Department, and their officers,
                    employees, and agents, harmless from any liability, expense or damage that
                    might result from injuries to persons or property caused by the activities or
                    structures authorized by the permit.


                    3.11 Appeals.
                    In this section the procedures for appealing a decision of the Department would

                    be set forth.



                              EXAMPLE:      Within        days following the publication of the
                    Department's decision on the application or on any modification, renewal,
                    suspension or revocation, of the permit, the applicant and any other person
                    adversely affected by the decision may file a written petition for reconsideration
                    with the Department. The petition shall set forth the reasons the petitioner
                    believes reconsideration is warranted. The Department shall rule on any
                    petitions for reconsideration within _ days following the close of the appeal
                    period and notify all interested parties of that decision in writing. As final
                    recourse, an aggrieved person may file a petition with the district court of the
                    Parish to review the Department's action. At the request of any party to that

                    suit, the court shall review the matter de novo.



                    3.12 Modifications of Permits.

                    In this section the circumstances and procedures that govern modifications of
                    permits would be set forth.


                              EXAMPLE: The terms and conditions of a permit may be modified to
                    allow for minor changes in the permitted use or activity, the plans and
                    specifications for that use or activity, or in the method of implementing the use
                    or activity. No permit shall be modified except upon the agreement of the









                    Mark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                         43


                    permittee and the Department. All other proposed changes shall be processed
                    as new permit applications and not as modifications.


                    3.13 Suspensions and Revocations.
                    This section would set forth the circumstances in which a permit may be
                    suspended or revoked.


                              EXAMPLE: The Department may suspend a permit upon finding, in
                    writing, that:


                    (1) The permittee has failed or refused to comply with the terms of the permit;


                    (2) The permittee has submitted false or incomplete information to the
                    Department in the permit application or otherwise; or


                    (3) The permittee has failed or refused to comply with any lawful order or
                    request of the Department.



                    Upon deciding to suspend a permit, the Department shall notify the permittee
                    in writing of the suspension, the reasons for it, and to immediately cease all
                    previously authorized activities and uses. The notification shall also state that
                    the permittee shall have the right to respond to the Department's action for a
                    period of      days following receipt of the notice. After considering the
                    permittee's response, if any, the Department shall take action to reinstate,
                    further condition, or revoke the permit. Notice of the Department's final action
                    shall be sent to the permittee and published in the official journal of the Parish.









                    Aark Davis, June 2, 1992                                                         44



                    3.14 Enforcement.



                              EXAMPLE: If the permittee fails to comply with a cease and desist
                    order or the suspension or revocation of a permit, the Department shall seek
                    appropriate civil and criminal relief. Additionally, any member of the public who
                    has been or would be affected by a permittee's activities in the sea level rise
                    area may bring an action against the Department to compel it to carry out its
                    duties under this ordinance or against the permittee to secure compliance with
                    the terms of the permit.



                    3.15 Penalties.

                    This section would set forth the penalties for failing to comply the provisions
                    of the ordinance or of any permit issued pursuant to the ordinance.



                    SECTION 4. GENERAL PERMITS



                    4.1 Authority.
                    This section would describe the authority of the permitting agency to issue
                    general permits.


                              EXAMPLE: The Department may issue general permits, subject to
                    such conditions as the Department deems appropriate, for certain clearly
                    described types of uses and activities which the Department has determined are
                    similar in nature, that will, individually and cumulatively, have adverse impacts,
                    and that *will not otherwise impair the fulfillment of the sea level rise
                    management program. No general permit shall be issued or modified without
                    first publishing notice in the official journal of the Parish and the expiration of
                    a 30 day comment period, commencing on the date of first publication.









                   Mark Davis," June 2, 1992                                                      45


                   4.2 Reporting.
                   This section would contain any requirements that persons undertaking any
                   activity pursuant to a general permit notify the permitting agency of that fact.


                             EXAMPLE: Each person desiring to undertake any use or activity
                   subject to a general permit must file a written notice with the Department at
                   least _ days prior to commencing the use or activity. The notice shall include
                   the name of the applicant and such descriptive materials as the Department
                   may require for that general permit. In its sole discretion the Department may
                   within the notice period determine that the general permit is unavailable and
                   require that the applicant seek an individual permit. The Department shall keep
                   records of all uses and activities undertaken under general permits and those
                   records shall be available to the public.



                   5. SCOPE OF COVERAGE



                   This section sets forth the scope of the ordinance with respect to other laws
                   and regulations.


                             EXAMPLE: The provisions of this ordinance represent minimum
                   standards and supersede all existing ordinances and local regulations with less
                   restrictive or conflicting standards or purposes.



                   6. SEVERABILITY



                   This section makes the various provisions of the ordinance severable, to the
                   extent that is possible. The purpose of this clause is to salvage the balance of
                   the ordinance if some portion or application of the ordinance is found to be
                   improper or illegal.








                   Mark Davis, June 2, 1:@92                                                    46


                             EXAMPLE: If any portion or application of this ordinance is found to
                   be invalid for any reason such finding shall not affect any other provisions or
                   applications of the ordinance that can be given effect without the invalidated
                   provision or application. To that end, the provisions of this ordinance are

                   declared severable.








                Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP June 2, 1992                                      47






                                                     MODEL FOR

                             AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION REGULATION ORDINANCE

                                                         FOR

                                            THE MITIGATION OF RISK IN

                          DESIGNATED SEALEVEL RISE or WETLANDS CONSERVATION

                                                          or

                                            SHORELINE EROSION ZONES



                                           Ordinance No.



                                                                  -PARISH




                    SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

                    1. 1 Short Title

                          a. This ordinance shall be know and may be cited as    .....
                    1.2 Authority and Purpose
                          a. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority delegated to (city
                    or other jurisdiction) under (cite relevant enabling statute) to review and
                    approve proposed subdivisions and to promote good planning practice.
                          b. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety,
                    and general welfare.
                          c. The provisions in this ordinance shall be administered in such a way
                    as to supplement and facilitate the provisions in the master or comprehensive
                    plan, zoning ordinance, official map, the capital budget and the existing
                    subdivision regulations, to which this ordinance shall be an amendment.-









                Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP June 2, 1992                                              48


                    1.3 Jurisdiction

                           a. The provisions in this ordinance shall be applicable in (cite area. This

                    will be the Sealevel Rise Hazard Zone or Wetlands Conservation Zone or

                    Shoreline Erosion Zone or such title as is decided upon by local planning
                    authorities pursuant to the passage of the ordinance elsewhere presented.)
                           b. This ordinance shall be effective on (date).
                           c. When necessary to further its purposes, this ordinance may be
                    amended (specify amending agency and procedure).



                    1.4 Fees

                           a.  Reasonable fees sufficient to recover       incurred charges may be
                    charged.



                    1.5 Enforcement and Penalties

                           a. It shall be the duty of the (specify agency or individual) to enforce the
                    provisions of this ordinance and to bring to the attention of (specify agency or
                    individual) any violations or lack of compliance.
                           b. Violations of the provision of this ordinance shall be deemed a
                    misdemeanor punishable as provided by law. The (specify agency or individual)
                    shall have recourse to such remedies in law and equity as may be necessary to
                    ensure compliance with the provisions of these regulations.


                    1.6 Separability and Conflict
                           a. The provisions of this ordinance are separable. If 'a section, clause,
                    sentence or phrase of this ordinance is adjudged by a court of competent
                    jurisdiction to be invalid, the decision shall not affect the remaining portions of

                    this ordinance.

                           b. Where conditions imposed by any provisions of this ordinance are
                    either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed








                 Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP June 2, 1992                                               49


                     by any other provisions of this ordinance or any other applicable law,
                     ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are
                     more restrictive and which impose higher standards or requirements shall

                     govern.



                     SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

                     2.1 Words and Terms Defined

                     Within the existing subdivision regulations there exists a list of definitions. This
                     ordinance may add additional terms to this list. For example:

                            a. Sea Level Rise

                            b. Sea Level Rise Hazard

                     It will be necessary to review the existing list of definitions in the subdivision
                     regulations and the zoning ordinance to determine if new coverage is needed
                     or if redefinition of any existing terms must be considered.



                     SECTION 3. ADMINISTRATION

                     3.1 Designation and Powers of Department Administering Program
                            a. The designated department or agency may be the one already
                     administering the subdivision regulations within the jurisdiction or it may be that
                     a new agency will be named. The agency to administer this part of the
                     ordinance and to whom queries should be addressed should be specified in this

                     part.



                     3.2 Subdivision Approval Process In Sealevel Rise Hazard Areas
                     1. Purpose
                            a. The purpose of this section is to establish the procedure for planning
                     board review and action on applications for subdivisions and/or site plans which
                     fall within designated sealevel rise hazard areas.








                Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP June 2, 1992                                            50


                    (Prior to the beginning date of this ordinance, a survey

                    will be done to establish the actual boundaries of the Sea Level Rise Hazard

                    Zone. This boundary will be published along with the criteria for its selection
                    and put out for public comment and review. A public hearing will culminate the
                    -process. After all the review and comments have been received, the
                    administering agency will designate the formal Sea Level Rise Hazard Zone in
                    which area the regulations in this amendment to the subdivision regulations will
                    apply.)
                    2. Pre-Application Conference
                          a. At the request of the applicant, the planning body shall authorize a
                    pre-application conference. Applicants requesting such a conference should be
                    given a deadline for the submission of materials to be reviewed of 10 days prior
                    to the meeting to facilitate planning staff review.
                          b. If requested and paid for by the applicant, a brief written summary of
                    the pre-application conference shall be provided within ten working days of the
                    final meeting.
                          c. The applicant shall not be bound by the determination of the pre-
                    application conference, nor shall the planning body or subdivision and site
                    review committee be bound by any such review.
                    3. Concept Plan
                          a. In like manner as a pre-application conference, at the request of the
                    applicant, the planning body or staff may grant an informal review of a concept
                    plan for a development for which the applicant intends to prepare and submit
                    a plan for development.
                          b. While the concept plan is a more formal document than might be
                    provided at a pre-application conference, the purpose of the concept plan is
                    also to provide planning board input in the the formative stages of subdivision
                    and site plan design, with the express purpose of insuring that the applicant is
                    aware of the dangers of development in a Sealevel Rise Hazard Zone and the









                Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP June 2, 1992                                          51


                   restrictions which the planning body has placed upon development in such

                   areas.

                          c. Concept plan materials shall be submitted to the planning body in the
                   form specified at least 10 days prior to the scheduled concept plan meeting.
 it                       d. If requested by and paid for by the applicant, a written summary of
                   the concept plan review shall be furnished within 10 working days of the
                   meeting.
                          e. The applicant may be charged reasonable fees for concept plan

                   review.

                          f. The applicant shall not be bound by any concept plan for which
                   review is requested, nor shall the governing board or subdivision and site plan
                   committee be bound by any such review.


                   3.5 Application
                          a. An application for a Sealevel Rise (or Wetlands Conseration or
                   Shoreline Erosion permit) will be made under provisions of the Sealevel Rise
                   Permit ordinance. In general, the permit will be applied for at the same time as
                   subdivision approval is considered. The subdivision regulations require certain
                   materials in specified numbers of copies and formats. It may be that the
                   Sealevel Rise permit application will have additional requirements. Any such
                   additional requirements should be spelled out here with specimen forms
                   provided for applicant guidance.


                   3.4 Public Hearings on Subdivision or Site Plan Applications
                          a. Herein should be a determination as to how the required public
                   hearing called for in the existing subdivision or site plan regulations can be
                   coordinated with any additional application requirements to be set forth in this

                   ordinance.








                Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP June,2, 1992                                              52


                    3.5 Criteria for Approval of Subdivision Application in Designated Sealevel Rise

                    Hazard Zone

                           a. The designated Planning agency shall determine, using the best and
                    most recent information available, what specific geographic areas comprise the
                    sealevel rise hazard zone. This determination shall be made by the planning
                    body with input from the public.
                           b. The boundaries of the designated sealevel rise hazard zone shall be
                    posted on a master map to be kept in the office of the local planning body.
                    Copies of the designated hazard zones will be published and made available to
                    the public. Applicants for subdivision approval shall be given copies of this
                    material as it relates to the area in which they are planning to develop.
                           c. Applicants should be asked to acknowledge receipt of Sealevel Rise
                    permit material at the time they receive the initial application for subdivision
                    approval or site plan review.
                           d. Specific subdivision and site design criteria that will be used to
                    evaluate subdivision and development applications shall be developed by the
                    local planning body in consultation with appropriate state and federal officials.
                    Restraints on the use of private land will only be as strict as necessary to insure
                    that potential damage to persons and property from projected sealevel rise is
                    minimized. Sea level rise mitigation regulations will only be put into place in
                    formally designated sealevel rise hazard zones.


                    3.6 Conditions of Subdivision Approval
                           a. Some subdivision requests may be approved without any conditions
                    other than those currently enforced in the existing subdivision regulations of the
                    subject governmental body. Other applicants may have to apply for conditional
                    permission of their subdivision or site plan request subject to certain
                    stipulations. A list of contingent conditions and the conditions under which they









                Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP June 2, 1992                                           53


                   shall be imposed should be developed by the local planning body and made
                   know to the applicant prior to his formal application.
                          b. Nothing in this section should bind a planning agency to use of just
                   these enumerated contingent conditions and no others if, in the judgement of
                   the planning body, the use of other conditions may be necessary to carry out
                   the purposes of this ordinance.
                          c. An appeal procedure similar to that called for in the subdivision
                   regulations generally is required. Details as to how this procedure will work
                   should be specified. Attention should be given to minimizing the additional
                   burden on the applicant.



                   3.7 Monitoring
                          a. The Model Sealevel Rise Ordinance (Sect. 3.2 et seq) delineates who
                   must have a Sealevel Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) permit

                   based on criteria to be set forth in Section 3.6 of that ordinance.)

                          b. After the issuance of a Sealevel Rise permit, either with or without
                   contingent conditions, to the applicant as part of his/her subdivision approval,
                   a monitoring procedure will then be enforced, the purpose of which is to
                   determine if all of the conditions placed on the permit are being complied with
                   or if any difficulties, unforeseen or otherwise, have arisen in the course of
                   construction which might impede the ability of the permit recepient to comply
                   with any of the conditions of the Sealevel Rise Permit.
                          c. Consideration might be given to requiring that the applicant, as is
                   normally done in the subdivision review process, be required to post a surety
                   bond in favor of the local general purpose unit of government which would
                   guarantee that the public benefit would not be lessened if, for any reason, a
                   developer was not able to fully comply with the conditions of the permit. The
                   bond would be required to be posted before plat approval and the subsequent
                   issuance of the Sealevel Rise permit. No certificate of occupancy would be








                Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP June 2, 1992                                             54


                    issued prior to the completion of the public improvements agreed to in the
                    approved subdivision application , and full compliance with the conditions of
                    the Sealevel Rise permit.


                    3.8 Suspension of Application
                          a. Suspension practices should, if possible, be in same general format
                    and intent as those that are contained in the existing subdivision regulations to
                    minimize coordination problems.


                    3.9 Revocation of Subdivision Approval
                          a. Generally, see 3.8.1 above.



                    3. 10 Enforcement and Penalties

                          a. Generally, see 3.8.1 above



                    SECTION 4. VARIANCE FROM PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE



                          a. Traditionally, in zoning, it has been the practice to establish a Zoning
                    Board of Appeals which body is empowered to vary the strict applications of
                    the zoning code on those persons who would otherwise encounter unique and
                    special hardship by strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance.
                    Consideration should be given to designating an appellate body to hear such
                    appeals from the planning body relative to the issuance or refusal of issuance
                    of a Sealevel Rise permit. This process should parallel and not replace the
                    subdivision appellate procedure.
                          b. Such body should not be composed just of laymen as is- the norm
                    with Boards of Zoning Adjustment but should reflect a range of technical skills
                    comensurate with the issues likely to be encountered in a sealevel rise permit

                    discussion.









                                                                             55



                                  OUTLINE OF MODEL FOR:



                                 SEA LEVEL RISE ORDINANCE

                                              or

                          WETLANDS CONSERVATION ORDINANCE

                                              or

                              SHORELINE EROSION ORDINANCE



                                  Ordinance No.

                                  SEA LEVEL RISE REGULATIONS

                                              or

                            WETLANDS CONSERVATION REGULATIONS

                                              or

                               SHORELINE EROSION REGULATIONS



                                                     PARISH



            SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

            1. 1 Title

            1.2   Purpose



            SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

            2.1   Usage

            2.2   Words and Terms Defined

            2.3   Boundaries of Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline

                  Erosion) Area
            2.4   Activities Not Requiring a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or
                  Shoreline Erosion) Permit









                  Rod E. Emer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                     56




               SECTION 3. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

               3.1   Designation and Powers of Department Administering the Program
               3.2   Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) Permit

                     Requirement
               3.3   Activities Not Requiring a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or
                     Shoreline Erosion) Permit
               3.4   Permit Application Procedure - Application, Fees, Reports on Decisions

               3.5   Permit Procedure - Administrative Action

               3.6   Public Hearings on Permit Applications
               3.7   Criteria for Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline

                     Erosion) Permit

               3.8   Term of Permits

               3.9   Conditions of Permit

               3.10  Appeals

               3.11  Modifications

               3.12  Monitoring
               3.13  Emergency Permits
               3.14  Suspensions

               3.15  Revocation

               3.16  Enforcement

               3.17  Penalties





               SECTION 4. PERMIT FOR NON-CONFORMING USES AND MAINTENANCE

               4.1   Definition of Classification

               4.2   General Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion)

                     Permits








             Rod E. Emer, Ph.D. June'2, 1992                     57


          SECTION 5. SCOPE OF COVERAGE



          SECTION 6. VARIANCE



          SECTION 7. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE



 4





















































 I










                                                                                                              58


                                                   COMMENTARY




                                                        MODEL FOR:



                                           SEA LEVEL RISE ORDINANCE*

                                                                or

                                  WETLANDS CONSERVATION ORDINANCE*

                                                                or

                                        SHORELINE EROSION ORDINANCE*





                                              Ordinance No.

                                              SEA LEVEL RISE REGULATIONS

                                                                or

                                      WETLANDS CONSERVATION REGULATIONS

                                                                or

                                           SHORELINE EROSION REGULATIONS





                                                                          PARISH






                     This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
                  interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
                  of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
                  the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
                  state and federal laws.









                   Rod Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                              59


                   SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS



                   1. 1 Title

                   Gives the name of the ordinance, i.e., how it shall be known, cited, and

                   hereinafter referred to.



                   1.2     Purpose
                   Presents the rationale for the ordinance; identifies the authorities for the

                   ordinance; and introduces the procedures that shall be followed.




                           Rationale for Sea Level Rise Ordinance


                           The purposes of the Sealevel Rise Ordinance are to maintain safe and
                           healthful conditions, to assist developers and individuals in taking
                           advantage of the state-of-the-art construction techniques that are
                           compatible with the natural environment; to protect structures from
                           flooding and accelerated erosion due to sealevel rise,- and to anticipate
                           impacts of sealevel rise on uses throughout the coastal zone.



                           Rationale for Wetlands Conservation Ordinance


                           The purposes of the Wetlands Conservation Ordinance are to require
                           planning that minimizes andlor avoids modification to tidal (nont/dal)
                           wetlands, to protect and enhance surface and groundwater quality; to
                           protect commercial and recreational fishing and maritime industries by
                           allowing nonwater dependent uses only on nonwetland sites; to protect
                           fish spawning grounds, aquatic life, and other habitat and the process
                           that render these habitats viable, to protect freshwater and coastal
                           wetlands, to assist developers and individuals in taking advantage of the


                     This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
                   interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
                   of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
                   the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
                   state and federal laws.








               Rod Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                 60


                      state-of-the-art construction techniques that are compatible with the
                      natural environment; to create a strategy for offsetting wetland losses;
                      and to provide coordination of ordinances that can contribute to
                      protection of wetlands, such as zoning laws, subdivision regulations,
                      building codes, stormwater management regulations, and floodplain
                      zoning.



                      .Rationale for Shoreline Erosion Ordinance


                      The purposes of the Shoreline Erosion Ordinance are to protect life and
                      property on or adjacent to natural or human-caused shorelines from
                      accelerated erosion caused by storm waves; from chronic erosion
                      resulting from along shore currents and normal wave regimes not
                      associated with extreme climatic events, from erosion due to natural or
                      human-related subsidence; and from erosion caused by waves or other
                      water movement by boats or ships.


               SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

               2.1    Usage
               Explains how words shall be construed, interpreted, and defined as they apply
               to the ordinance and the implementing regulations. For example, the word
               "shall" is always mandatory, while the word "will" indicates a possible option.




               2.2 Words and Terms Defined

               An alphabetical listing of words and terms followed by a statement of the
               meaning of the word or term. In some cases, the explanations may include a
               reference to sections of the ordinance, laws, or regulations. This section
               establishes how the words and terms shall apply to the ordinance. Possible


               0 This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
               interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
               of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
               the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
               state and federal laws.









                   Rod Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                              61


                   sources for commonly used terms include the Code of Federal Regulations, the
                   U. S. Code, glossaries published by professional organizations, and documents
                   issued by federal agencies.


                   2.3    Boundaries of Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline

                   Erosion) Area
                   Defines and identifies the limits of the jurisdiction to which the ordinance
                   applies. The subsection may include both a map and written description of the
                   limits of the area. In addition, this section may include a discussion of the
                   procedures used for setting the boundaries, such as a reference to the accepted
                   federal definition of wetlands, the area impacted by sea level rise, or eroding
                   shorelines. Erosion zones may anticipate federal requirements, such as 30 and
                   60 year setbacks, thereby satisfying more than one program.


                   2.4    Activities Not Requiring a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or
                   Shoreline Erosion) Permit
                   Lists those projects and programs occurring within the areas affected by Sea
                   Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) that are exempt from
                   a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) Permit. For
                   example, some projects and programs may be "grandfathered" for a reasonable
                   period of time (sometimes called an amortization period) because they were in
                   place before the effective date of the ordinance; or, the project or program may
                   be of such a size as to have minimal or no adverse impact on these areas.





                     This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
                   interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
                   of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
                   the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
                   state and federal laws.








           Rod E=er, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                           62




           SECTION 3. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT



           3.1  Designation and Powers of Program Administrator
           Specifies who appoints (probably the police jury or city council) the Program
           Administrator; where the Program Administrator (PA) is domiciled in the local
           government; and the enumerated powers and duties of the PA. The subsection
           may include provisions for an advisory committee to assist the PA and specify
           how the advisory committee shall function.



           3.2  Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) Permit

           Requirement
           Specifies who must obtain a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or
           Shoreline Erosion) permit. This is usually any seeking to commence any use
           not exempted in Subsection 2.4.


           3.3  Activities Requiring a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline

           Erosion) Permit
           Lists those projects and programs occurring within the areas affected by Sea
           Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion Area) that shall acquire

           a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) Permit before
           they can be implemented. Provisions are made for adding projects or programs
           which do not appear in the list, but that would have a detrimental affect if
           allowed to take place without modification.



            This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
           interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
           of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
           the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
           state and federal laws.









           Rod Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1592                            63


           3.4  Permit Application Procedure - Application, Fees, Reports on Decisions
           Identifies the forms that shall be used when making an application for a Sea
           Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) permit. Specifies
           where and to whom applications shall be submitted and sets the supportive
           information that must accompany the form.


           The range of fees and controlling factors are specified.


           Requires that the PA prepare written reports on all decisions and make these
           available to the public during normal business hours at an appropriate public
           location within the community. Annual summaries may be prepared by the PA.




           3.5  Permit Procedure - Administrative Action

           Presents the path or methodology for processing a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands
           Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) permit application. The process begins with
           receipt of the application and review for completeness. Times are set for
           internal processing and issuing decisions. Provisions are made for public
           notices of all applications, notifying adjacent landowners, and anyone
           requesting a copy of the application. Costs may be assessed for all reasonable
           fees to cover publication in the official community journal, or copying, handling,
           and mailing of single copies.






            This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
           interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
           of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
           the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
           state and federal laws.









                   Rod E=er, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                                64


                   Procedures for making decisions and notifying everyone of the decisions are
                   described.



                   3.6 Public Hearings on Permit Applications
                   Provides when public hearings shall be held and when public hearings are
                   optional. Presents ways an individual or group may request a public hearing.
                   Establishes the public notice schedule and location for the hearing; who
                   conducts the hearing; the rules and procedures for the hearing; the receipt of
                   information and comments, both written and oral; and the length of the
                   comment period for inclusion of material into the official record. Finally, the
                   subsection sets a limit for the PA to make a decision after the public hearing
                   and the method for notifying the public and applicant of the decision.


                   3.7     Criteria for Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion)

                   Permit

                   Sets the standards that shall be used to judge whether a Sea Level Rise
                   (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) permit should be issued.



                   3.8 Term of Permits

                   Sets the time when a project or program must begin after the issuance of a
                   permit and when the project or program must be complete. Makes provisions
                   for extensions of the times, usually when a delay is beyond the control of the
                   applicant or if the project is substantially complete or in progress.





                      This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
                   interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
                   of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
                   the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
                   state and federal laws.









               Rod E=er, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                              65


               3.9   Conditions of Permit

               Sets standard conditions that apply to all Sea Level Rise (Wetlands
               Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) permits. Provides that special conditions
               can be attached to any permit, such as a performance bond or onsite
               mitigation. These special conditions may allow for the project or program
               implementation even though the proposed action does not completely meet a
               particular standard.


               3. 10 Appeals
               Indicates who may appeal a decision by the PA; to whom they may appeal; the
               form of the appeal (usually in writing); the time frame for the appeal; the
               hearing process and schedule; the decisionmaking body; and the rendering of
               the decision and publication of the decision in the official journal and a notice
               to the one who appealed.



               3.11 Modifications

               Indicates that permit conditions may be modified within certain limits, but that
               any significant increase in impacts shall result in a new permit application. Sets
               the reasons why a permit may be modified.


               3.12 Monitoring
               Directs the PA to monitor the progress of all permitted uses for compliance
               with standard and special permit conditions. The PA may undertake onsite
               inspections and shall prepare a report on each permit.



                 This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
               interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
               of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
               the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
               state and federal laws.








           Rod Mrmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                            66


           3.13 Emergency Permits
           Sets the criteria for issuing emergency permits, such as where public safety is
           endangered or in situations requiring immediate action to protect the general
           welfare of the community. Specifies who the PA shall consult before issuing
           a emergency permit.


           3.14 Suspensions
           List the reasons the PA may suspend a permit. Sets the notification procedures
           the permittee and a schedule for the permittee to respond to the suspension
           order. Limits the PA decision time on a permit suspension to a specified
           number of days.



           3.15 Revocation

           Sets the revocation process.



           3.16 Enforcement

           PA may seek appropriate civil and/or criminal relief if necessary to implement
           the provisions of the Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline
           Erosion) program.



           3.17 Penalties

           Sets the fine and penalties for violations or failure to comply with the provisions
           of the ordinance or the terms or conditions of the permit.





            This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
           interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
           of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
           the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
           state and federal laws.









               Rod Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                            67




               SECTION 4. NON-CONFORMING USES AND MAINTENANCE



               4.1   Definition of Classification

               Establishes the date for "grandfathered" projects or programs that do not
               require a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) permit.


               List the criteria the PA shall use to determine what is normal repair,
               rehabilitation, replacement, or maintenance of existing uses that do not require
               a Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion) permit.


               4.2   General Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline Erosion)

               Permits

               Provides for General Sea Level Rise (Wetlands Conservation or Shoreline
               Erosion) permits. Sets the procedure for General permits; the procedure for
               obtaining such as permit; conditions that apply to general permits; and the
               reporting process.



               SECTION 5. SCOPE OF COVERAGE

               Describes the relationship of the local ordinance to federal and state
               regulations, guidelines, and standards.








                 This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
               interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
               of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
               the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
               state and federal laws.








                   Rod Emmer, Ph.D. June 2, 1992                                                              68


                   SECTION 6. VARIANCE

                   Sets the criteria for any variances from the ordinance. Provides for a public
                   notice and a decision process.



                   SECTION 7. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

                   Standard clause on separability.


































                     This commentary is prepared by a planner and is not nor is it intended to be a legal
                   interpretation of state laws. The commentary focuses on the general organization and content
                   of the ordinance. During the preparation of any ordinance and certainly before its enactment
                   the parish or municipal legal counsel should review the proposed ordinance for compliance with
                   state and federal laws.









                   Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AlCP       June 2, 1992                                   69






                                     GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

                                                          OF

                         MODEL SEALEVEL RISE or WETLANDS CONSERVATION

                                                          or

                                      ERODING SHORELINE ORDINANCE

                                              Ralph E. Thayer, Ph.D.



                   1.0 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

                   The model ordinance might be enacted as an amendment to the existing zoning
                   ordinance and subdivision regulations. The statement of purpose of the
                   proposed ordinance is, in effect, a statement of public policy on the part of the
                   governmental jurisdiction justifying the placement of restrictions on the use of
                   private and public property. As such, this statement of purpose should also be
                   formulated as an amendment to the land use map and policies comprising the
                   comprehensive plan. The statement of policy and purposes Js extremely
                   important since it serves as a yardstick for the developer and the reviewing
                   agency. Without these general guidelines and more precise standards to be
                   formulated and promulgated in the complete ordinance, any governmental
                   jurisdiction implementing the ordinance will likely be challenged as acting
                   arbitrarily in denying approval of a plat which may have been developed at
                   substantial cost to the proposed subdivider.


                   No substate governmental jurisdiction, municipality or parish, can, through
                   contract with the subdivider, exercise powers greater than those granted them
                   by the state. The Louisiana statute authorizing the control of subdivisions (La.
                   R.S. 33:111-117) does not clearly enunciate the purpose of subdivision control,












                                   If
                    Ralph E. Thayer, Phl), AICP     June 2, 1992                                  70


                    so it is doubly necessary to delineate this purposes in the model ordinance in
                    order to apprise the court that the purposes of the Model Sealevel Rise
                    amendments are in accordance with the statutory objective of regulation.



                    2.0 METHOD OF ADOPTION

                          2.1 La. R.S. 33:113 provides:
                    "A planning commission may, from time to time, recommend to the local
                    legislative body, amendments to the zoning ordinance or map or additions
                    thereto to conform to such commission's recommendations for the zoning
                    regulation of the territory comprised within approved subdivisions."
                          2.2 For a legally constituted planning commission operating under this
                    statute, therefore, the adoption process of the Model Sealevel Rise Ordinance
                    is straightforward. It is handled as an amendment to the existing zoning
                    ordinance and map. The procedural elements of the zoning ordinance would
                    apply such as the provision of due notice and the requirement for a public
                    hearing(s). Following those provisions, the proposed amendment to the zoning
                    code will be forwarded to the local legislative body for its consideration and
                    possible enactment. This statement would apply to any units of substate
                    government (municipalities, parishes) in which planning is carried out by a duly
                    appointed planning body and which body, also under purview of state law,
                    administers a zoning code and map.
                          2.3    For parishes, specifically for parishes who have a planning
                    commission duly constituted but which body does not administer a zoning
                    ordinance, La. R.S 33:113 provides:


                    win the case of a parish planning commission, such requirements or restrictions
                    shall be stated upon the plat prior to the approval and recording thereof and

                    shall have the same force of law and be enforceable in the same manner and








                   Ralph E. Thayer, Phl), AlLr-     June 2, 1992                                   71


                   with the same sanctions and penalties and subject to the same power of
                   amendment or repeal as though set out as part of a zoning ordinance or map."
                          2.4 Further, La. R.S. 33:112 E provides:
                   "Regulations governing the subdivision of land may be amended from time to
                   time, subject to the requirements governing original adoption with respect to
                   notice, hearing, and filing with local authorities."
 wr                       2.5 Therefore, even if zoning is not practiced by the parish planning
                   commission as is the case in some of the coastal parishes, virtually all parishes
                   do exercise control over subdivisions through a planning body. In the absence
                   of a zoning ordinance, it is possible to implement the Model Sealevel Rise
                   Ordinance as an amendment to the existing subdivision regulations citing the
                   provisions above.



                                                    COMMENTARY



                   There is still a good deal of controversy as to the existence and the extent as
                   well as the timing of the probable sealevel rise brought on by global warming.
                   However, even under current and projected conditions, the coastal erosion and
                   wetlands loss in Louisiana coastal parishes is already of sufficient gravity as to
                   justify consideration of intervention under the police power to protect the public
                   health, safety, and general welfare. If the decision is made to proceed, a careful
                   and complete statement of purpose and a statement of policies to be followed
                   will be the first requirement.


                   Second, studies delineating exactly where the proposed sealevel rise or coastal
                   erosion or wetlands loss zone is to be demarcated should take place.' Third, an
                   enumeration of the proposed requirements to be added to the zoning ordinance
                   or the subdivision regulations or both must be undertaken. No regulation can
                   go further than is necessary to achieve its stated purpose. Therefore, the








                    Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AlCP        June Z, 1992                                    72


                    enumeration of any restrictions to be placed on the use of private property
                    must be accompanied by sufficient documentation as to their necessity. Due
                    diligence should be exercised to avoid the possibility of leaving an owner with
                    no use of his/her land unless the public body implementing any such regulation
                    is prepared to consider payment for expropriation and formally move to
                    implement that procedure as may be provided under state law.


                    No regulation can long stand alone no matter how well documented. Particular
                    emphasis should be placed on establishing that the requirements of the model
                    ordinance will tie into the existing zoning code and map as well as the
                    subdivision regulations. Linkages should be explicitly established, preferably in
                    the form of a comprehensive planning process resulting in a continuously
                    updated master or comprehensive plan, to the capital budget, to the capital
                    improvements program, building codes, and any other regulatory mechanisms
                    to which a relationship can be documented and whose existence is seen as
                    furthering the purposes of the ordinance. The public hearing, required under
                    the zoning code, might well be expanded to a series of public hearings. The
                    purpose of these hearings is to inform or educate the public as to the dangers

                    of the sealevel rise or the coastal erosion or the wetlands loss or a combination

                    of all three. Polling data indicates that the public, more than public officials, is
                    willing to consider additional well considered restrictions of the use of land that
                    is particularly susceptible to being inundated.


                    At the beginning of the model ordinance consideration process, a body of
                    technically qualified persons might be appointed to assist with the presentation
                    and interpretation of provisons of the ordinance. This body might later be
                    empanelled to serve as a Board of Adjustments and Appeals empowered to
                    hear and make recommendations on requests for waivers from the provisions
                    of the Sealevel Rise or Coastal Erosion or Wetlands Loss ordinance. Said body,









                   Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP        June 2, 1992                                   73


                   who should be formally appointed under provisions of state law to maximize
                   sovereign immunity so much as is possible, might also act, reporting to the
                   planning body, to make recommendations on the issuance of sealevel rise zone
                   permits with or without contingent conditions discussed in the model

                   ordinance.



                   Finally, state law and general practice provides that subdivisions of five lots or
                   less are exempt from the provisions of many subdivision ordinances even
                   though they are required to meet some planning standards and then to be
                   formally registered. Consideration should be given to either adopting a less
                   stringent standard to be met by subdividors of five lots or less or, perhaps,
                   exempting subdivisions of that size from coverage under the act. Local
                   considerations may well dictate the wisest course of action.










                                                                                              74


                                                     AGENDA
                              PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ALONG THE
                                              LOUISIANA COAST
                                                    JUNE1992


                                     University of New Orleans Student Union
                                                    Room 211.

                    8:30 - 9:00      Continental Breakfast

                    9:15 - 9:30      Welcome                             F. Wagner, Dean
                                                                         College of Urban and
                                                                         Public Affairs

                    9:30 - 9:45      Introduction                        R.Emmer, Adj. Prof.
                                                                         CUPA

                    9:45 - 10:15     Sea Level Rise, the Coastal         S. Laska, Director
                                     Zone, and People                    ESSRI


                    10:15 - 10:30    Planning in the Coastal Zone        R. Emmer

                    10:30 - 10:45    BREAK

                    10:45 - 11:05    Comprehensive Planning Process      R. Thayer, Prof.
                                                                         CUPA


                    11:05 - 11:25    Zoning Ordinances                   M. Davis
                    11:25 - 11:45    Subdivision Regulations             R. Thayer

                    11:45 - 12:00    Discussion and Questions            R. Emmer

                    12:00 - 1:15     LUNCH                               P. Coulter, Dean
                                                                         College of Liberal Arts
                    1:15 - 1:45      Building Codes                      D. Hawkins
                                                                         Floodplain Mgt. Sec.
                                                                         DOTD

                    1:45 - 2:15      Sea Level Rise/ Wetland             R. Emmer
                                     Conservation

                    2:15 - 2:45      Implementation                      R. Thayer
                    2:45 - 3:00      Discussion and Questions            R. Thayer
                    CUPA =College of Urban and Public Affairs
                    ESSRI =Environmental and Social Science Research Institute









                                                                                             75



                                            Selected References
                                   Sea Level Rise and Coastal Louisiana


                                                June 2, 1992



                  Anon. National Wetlands Newsletter. Bi-monthly. Vol. 1, Nov. 1978-.
                        Environmental Law Institute. Washington, D.C.

                  Anon. Land Letter. Bi-weekly. The Conservation Fund. Arlington, Va.

                  Anon. 1988. Research Guide to Selected Wetland Law & Policy Literature.
                        Virginia Journal of Natural Resources Law. Vol.7, pp.435-451.

                  Baird, Joseph H. 1989. Federal Regulation of Stream and Wetlands: Avoiding
                        Unpleasant Surprises in the Swamp. Advocate. Vol. 32, Sept. 57 p.

                  Baynard, Ernest C. 1986. Public Land Law and Procedure. John Wiley &
                        Sons, New York. 506 p.

                  Boesch, Donald F. and Nancy Rabalais. 1989. Produced Wasters in Sensitive
                        Coastal Habitats, Central Gulf of Mexico. Springfield, Va. 157 p.

                  Brower, D.J. and D. S. Carol 1984. "Coastal Zone Management as Land
                        Planning," National Planning Association. Center for Urbanand Regional
                        Studies, University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, N. C. 49 p.

                  Burke, D.G., E.J. Meyer, R.W. Tiner, Jr, and H. Groman. 1988." Protecting
                        Nontidal Wetlands," Plannina Advisory Service. American Planning
                        Association. Washington, D.C. 76 p.

                  Capitol Regional Planning Commission 1968-1976 Section 701 Studies for the
                        Capitol Region. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

                  Coastal Zone Management Act. United States Code. Vol. 16, Sections 1451 -
                        1464.


                  Code of Federal Regulations. 1990. Title 33. Navigation and Navigable
                        Waters. Parts 323, 330-338. Permits and Dredge and Fill. U.S.
                        Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.










                                                                                           76

                  Coggins, George C. 1991. Public Natural Resources La . Clark Boardman.
                        New York. Looseleaf.

                  Conner, W.H. 1977. Public Administration of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands:
                        1820 to 1976. Center for Wetlands Resources. Louisiana State
                        University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 66 p.

                  DeVoe, Curt. 1986. " Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction Over Wetlands
                        Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act," Ecology Law Quarterly.
                        Vol. 13, Winter. pp. 575-591.

                  Dueker, Kenneth J.; De Lacy P. Barton. 'GIS in the Land Development
                        Planning Process," APA JournD-I. Autumn 1990. pp.483.

                  Emmer, R.E. A. Rheams, and F. Wagner. 1990. Offshore Petroleum
                        Development and the Comprehensive Planning Process. College of
                        Urban and Public Affairs, University of New Orleans for the Minerals
                        Management Services, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New
                        Orleans, La. 63 p. (unpublished).

                  Emmer, R.E.    1992. WetlandS Conservation through Local Community
                        Programs. College of Urban and Public Affairs, University of New
                        Orleans for the office of Wetland Protection, U.S.      Environmental
                        Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 74 p.

                  Geltman, Elizabeth Ann Glass. 1989. " Regulation of Non Adjacent Wetlands
                        Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act," New England Law Review.
                        Vol. 23, Winter/Spring. pp. 815-843.

                  Hagman, Donald G. and Julian C. Juergensmeyer. 1986. Urban Planning and
                        Land Development Control Law. West Publishing Co. St Paul, Mn. 680
                        P.

                  Haynes, C.H. 1988. Wetland Protection in Superfund Remediations. Institute
                        for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin. N.T.I.S. PB89-
                        189435/GAR.

                  Healy, R.G., and J.A. Zinn. 1985. " Environment and Development Conflicts
                        in Coastal Zone Management," Journal of American Planning
                        Association. Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.299-31 1.1-1illgren, Sonja. "Corps of
                        Engineers Back Down on Wetlands Rules," FarmJgurnal. Vol. 114.
                        November, 1990. 5p.










                                                                                            77

                  Issues in wetlands protection: Background papers prepared for the National
                        Wetlands Policy Forum. Edited by Gail Bingham 1990. Washington,
                        D.C.: Conservation Foundation.


                  Jackson, Jerry, and Sarah Armitage.          1984.     "United States vs.
                        RiversideBayview Homes," Environmental Law Rel2orter. Vol. 14, Oct.
                        pp. 10360-10373.

                  Jamieson, Cheryl L. 1986. " An Analysis of Municipal Wetlands Laws and
                        Their Relationship to the Convention on Wetlands of International
                        Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Land Use Symposium),"
                        Pace Environmental Law Review. Vol. 4, Fall. pp. 319-355.

                  Kilborn, John W. 1991.     Purchaser Liability for the Restoration of Illegally
                        Filled Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act," Poston
                        Colleae Environmental Affairs Law Review. Vol.18, No. 2, pp. 319-
                        355.


                  Kusler, Jon A.; Kintula, Mary E. 1990. Wetland creation and restoration: The
                        status of the science. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 594p.

                  Kusler, Jon A.     1983.    Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection
                        Guidebook. Environmental Law Institute. Washington D.C. 167p.

                  Kusler, Jon A. 1985. Wetland -Protection: Strengthening thg Role of the
                        States: Proceedings of the National Symposium. Association of State
                        Wetlands Managers. Gainsville, Florida. 711 p.

                  Kusler, Jon A., et.al. 1988. 1986 National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation
                        of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers. New
                        Orleans, La. 460p.

                  La Tour, Edmund S. 1990. " A Dilemma: Should the Public Have to Buy
                        Wetlands in Order to Preserve Them?" Tulane Environmental Law
                        Journal. Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 292-310.

                  Lavelle, Marianne. 1990. " Wetlands The Battle Cry in Washington," The
                        National Law Journpl. Washington, D.C. Vol. 12. July 23, 24p.

                  Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation, Restoration, and Management Act.
                        Louisiana Revised Statuses, Vol. 49, Sections 213.1-214.41.










                                                                                             78

                  Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism 1988. Louisiana
                        Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Office of State Parks,
                        Division of Outdoor Recreation.

                  Malone , Linda A. 1991. Environmental Regulation of Land Use. Clark
                        Boardman. New York. Looseleaf.Mandelker, Daniel R. 1988. Land Use
                        Law. The Michie Company. Charlottesville, Virginia. 2nd Edition. 551
                        P. + 1991 Supp.

                  Midboe, K.D., E. Easterly, D. Duhon, and J. Bockrath. 1976. LOX&I
                        Authorities of Control of Land Users in Coastal Louisiana. Louisiana
                        State University, Sea Grant Program, Baton Rouge, La. 38 p.

                  Mumphrey,A.J.,Jr.,J.S. Brooks,andJ.C. Miller. 1976. U[ban Development
                        in the Louisiana Coastal Zol3e: Problgms and Guidelines. Urban Studies
                        Institute, University of New Orleans for.the Louisiana State Planning
                        Office, Baton Rouge, La, 141 p.

                  Norman, Colin. "Navy Relents in Battle Over Mapping Sea Floor,"      Science.
                        Vol. 244. April 1989. pp. 25.

                  Palmisano, Rock A. 1987. " Wetlands: An Endangered Species?" Temole
                        Environmental Law & Technology Journal. Vol. 6, Summer. pp. 73-88.

                  Ray, Bruce D. 1989. " Recent Developments in Federal Wetlands Regulation,"
                        Colorado LaWer. Vol. 18, Sept. pp. 1755-1757.

                  Ray, G. Carleton. "Coastal-Zone Biodiversity Patterns," Bioscience. Vol.41.
                        July 1.991. pp. 490-498.

                  Renner, James R. 1979. An Economic Model for Balancing Conservation and
                        Develogment of Wetlands. A University of New Orleans thesis.

                  Robbins, Richard and Dorothy Lagerrroos. 1981. " Floodplains and Wetlands:
                        Legal Constraints and Options," American Bar Association. Chicago.
                        Looseleaf.


                  Robinson, Nicholas A. 1991. " Environmental Regulation of Real Property,"
                        Law Journal Seminars Presï¿½. New York. Looseleaf.

                  Rosenbaum, Kenneth L. 1983. " Fifth Circuit Defers to EPA's Expertise,
                        Approves Broad Section 404 Wetlands Jurisdiction," Environmental La
                        Rel2orter. Vol. 13, Dec. pp. 10387-10401.










                                                                                           79

                  Salvensen, David. 1990. Wetlands: Mitigating and Regulating Development
                        Handbook. Government Institutes, Inc, Rockville, Md. 11 7p.

                  Smardon, Richard C. 1983. The Future of Wetignds: Assessing visual-cultural
                        values. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun.

                  So, F.S. and J. Getzels. 1988. The Practice of Local Government Planning.
                        Municipal Management Series.        International City Management
                        Association. Second Edition. 545p.

                  So, F.S., 1. Hand, and B.D. McDowell (eds). 1986. The Practice of State and
                        Regional Planning. Municipal Management Series. International City
                        Management Association 653p.

                  Steinberg, Robert E., ed. 1989. " Wetlands Protection and Development: The
                        Advantages of Retaining Federal Control," Stanford Environmental Law
                        Journal.


                  Stone, Renee.    1991.       Wetlands Protection and Development: The
                        Advantages of Retaining Federal Control," Stanford Environment Law
                        Journal. Vol.10, pp. 137-168.

                  Turner, Tom. 1990. Wild by Law. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco. 156p.

                  Von Beek, J.L. 1982. Recommendations for freshwater diversion to LoulsiaD-d
                        estuaries east of the Mississipipi River.      Prepared for Coastal
                        Management Section, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; Baton
                        Rouge, Louisiana. Coastal Environments, Inc.

                  Want, William L. 1989. Law of Wetlands Regulation. Clark Boardman, New
                        York. Looseleaf.


                  Want, William L. 1984. " The Taking Defense to Wetland Regulation,"
                        Environmental Law Rer)orter. Vol 14, April. pp. 10169-10178.
                  Wright, Robert R. and Susan Webber Wright. 1985. Land Use in a Nutshell.
                        West Publishing Co. St. Paul, Mn. 356p.

                  Yoskin, Neil. 1990. " New State Wetlands Act Bogged Down by Suits:
                        Uncertainties Over Exemptions Plague Enforcement of Statute,w New
                        Jersey Law Journal. Vol.125, June 7, 70p.

















































                                                                                              : I I,,. @
                                                                                              1-1
                                                                                                             I




                                                                                              I              I




                                                                              i
                                                                              I               -------------------  -11
                                                                    GAYLORDINIo. 2333







                                                                      @ I I I III IIIIHIIIIIIII 111111111111
                                                                         3 6668 14106 8231